On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 5:30 AM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> There is no rule of when the number of records at the end of the lists
> should be shown or not
> Sometimes we show that line "(4 rows)", but sometimes not.
> Should we have a standard for it ?
>
I'm inclined toward no.
If we do, we proba
There are lots of strange things related to this (... rows)
First, (0 rows) are completely useless. If no one record is shown, why do
we need that list ?
We could change (0 rows), like this one on dblink.sgml
SELECT * FROM dblink_get_notify();
notify_name | be_pid | extra
-++-
Em dom., 24 de nov. de 2024 às 18:54, David Rowley
escreveu:
> > SELECT format('|%10s|', 'foo');
This example you said returns one value, so I think it is ok.
I'm talking about lists with multiple fields or multiple lines. In [1] we
have both modes.
I don't think that "(2 rows)" is useful
sele
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 at 01:30, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> There is no rule of when the number of records at the end of the lists should
> be shown or not
> Sometimes we show that line "(4 rows)", but sometimes not.
> Should we have a standard for it ? Should we add them all or remove them all ?
It
There is no rule of when the number of records at the end of the lists
should be shown or not
Sometimes we show that line "(4 rows)", but sometimes not.
Should we have a standard for it ? Should we add them all or remove them
all ?
I think they are useless. Or maybe shown when no rows are returned.
