On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is > perceived to be voting for what.
True. It's not very clear; thanks for trying to shed some light on it. > I don't particularly care for it either, primairly because \sf could be > improved upon, as suggested by Peter, to avoid the need to have the same > information displayed by both \df+ and \sf. IMHO, we've had \dWHATEVER as the way to find out about things for so long that we should just stick with it. I think users are used to remembering which character they need to stick after \d to get information on the object type in which they are currently interested; I know I am. If we move this all over to \sf people will have trouble finding it. I'll get used to it because I "work here" and so will you, but I think most users will just type \df and then \df+ and then say ... well where the %@#! did they put it? >> If you do want to see all of the output, you'll appreciate not having >> it indented by 60 or 80 columns any more. There's really no >> circumstanced under which it's worse than what we're doing today. > > That doesn't mean, at least to me, that we should forgo considering > better alternatives. I don't think so, either, but if we could agree that "Tom's patch > doing nothing" then he could commit it and we could debate whether there's something even better. > We often reject patches which only improve a bit on the status quo > because we wish for a better overall solution, particularly when we're > talking about user interfaces that we don't want to change between every > release. Sure, that's true. In this case, however, I believe that the amount of improvement that's possible is pretty limited. Super-wide lines that rapid repeatedly are bad; we can probably all agree on that. Whether or not it's better to adjust \df+ as Tom has done or introduce \df++ or enhance \sf or something else entirely is debatable; different people prefer different things for different reasons - or for no reason, as some of this is surely down to personal preference. If I thought Tom's patch solved 20% of the problem while kicking 80% of it down the road, I'd probably agree that we ought not to adopt it; but in fact I think it's more like the reverse -- at least in the narrow sense of keeping \df+ output readable, which I think is about as ambitious as we should make our goal for a thread that started out being about showing parallel status in \df+ output. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
