2013/7/23 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I propose a few new commands >>> >>> \dts [N|size] ... show N largest tables | show tables larger than size >>> ordered by size >>> \dis [N|size] ... show N largest indexes | show indexes larger than >>> size ordered by size >>> \dtst [N|size] ... show N largest total size | show tables where total >>> size is larger than size ordered by total size >>> \dtr [N] ... show N largest tables (ordered by rows) > >> I think our \d commands are in inscrutable morass of indecipherable >> gobbledygook as it is, and this is only one more step down the road to >> complete insanity. :-( > > Indeed. At least in this particular design, there is no sane way to > tell the difference between this family of commands and the \dtisv > family --- which has completely different behavior, starting with what > it thinks the argument means. Even if you can come up with some > arguably logical rule for the code to use, users will never remember > which is which. In fact, the first three of those already have defined > meanings, and while the fourth does not AFAIR, the current psql code > nonetheless takes it, ignoring the "r". > > Even if we thought the functionality was worth the trouble, which I > continue to doubt, this particular syntax proposal is a disaster.
I disagree - if it works well for vim editor, then it should to work in psql too. There is not too much other possibilities, how to implement TUI interface :( Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
