Re: pg_get_viewdefs() indentation considered harmful
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_get_viewdefs() indentation considered harmful |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52E3FC3C.5020902@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_get_viewdefs() indentation considered harmful (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_get_viewdefs() indentation considered harmful
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/25/2014 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote: >>> Indeed even aside from the performance questions, once you're indented >>> 5-10 times the indention stops being useful at all. The query would >>> probably be even more readable if we just made indentation modulo 40 >>> so once you get too far indented it "wraps around" which is not unlike >>> how humans actually indent things in this case. >> Ha! That seems a little crazy, but *capping* the indentation at some >> reasonable value might not be dumb. > I could go for either of those approaches, if applied uniformly, and > actually Greg's suggestion sounds a bit better: it seems more likely > to preserve some readability in deeply nested constructs. > > With either approach you need to ask where the limit value is going > to come from. Is it OK to just hard-wire a magic number, or do we > need to expose a knob somewhere? > > Simply capping it is probably the best bang for the buck. I suspect most people would prefer to have "q1 union q2 union q3 union q4" with the subqueries all indented to the same level. But I understand the difficulties in doing so. A knob seems like overkill. I'd just hardwire some number, say three or four levels of indentation. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: