Greetings, * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 2/27/20 4:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >My opinion is that this is not particularly useful and not appropriate to > >piggy-back onto \conninfo. Connection information including host, port, > >database, user name is a well-established concept in PostgreSQL programs > >and tools and it contains a delimited set of information. Knowing what > >server and what database you are connected to also seems kind of > >important. Moreover, this is information that is under control of the > >client, so it must be tracked on the client side.
I have to say that I disagree. Wishing to know when you connected to a server is entirely reasonable and it's also rather clearly under control of the client (though I don't entirely understand that argument in the first place). > >Knowing how long you've been connected on the other hand seems kind of > >fundamentally unimportant. If we add that, what's to stop us from adding > >other statistics of minor interest such as how many commands you've run, > >how many errors there were, etc. The connection time is already > >available, and perhaps we should indeed make it a bit easier to get, but > >it doesn't need to be a psql command. Of 'minor' interest, or not, if it's something you'd like to know then it's pretty handy if there's a way to get that info. This also isn't inventing a new psql command but rather adding on to one that's clearly already a 'creature comfort' command as everything included could be gotten at in other ways. As for the comparison to other things of minor interest, we do give users a way to get things like line number (%l in PROMPT), so including something akin to that certainly doesn't seem out of the question. Having a '%T' or something in the prompt for connected-at-time seems like it could certainly be useful too. Going a bit farther, I wonder if conninfo could be configurable as a Prompt-like string, that seems like it'd be pretty neat. Anyway, I don't anticipate having time to do anything with this patch but I disagree that this is a "we don't want it" kind of thing, rather we maybe want it, since someone cared enough to write a patch, but the patch needs work and maybe we want it to look a bit different and be better defined. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
