Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRA2aEY+SRjZ_WurB8512Etry3Arefv_L7fkpHW-ct3kkQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
čt 7. 4. 2022 v 19:04 odesílatel David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:On 4/7/22 12:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't
>>> fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency
>>> with set_config().
>
>> I'd prefer \dconfig, but if the majority on this list view that as pedantically forcing them to type more, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about \dconf.
>
> Maybe I'm atypical, but I'm probably going to use tab completion
> either way, so it's not really more keystrokes. The consistency
> point is a good one that I'd not considered before.
Yeah I had thought about \dconfig too -- +1 to that, although I am fine
with \dconf too.\dconfig[+] gets my vote. I was going to say "conf" just isn't common jargon to say or write; but the one place it is - file extensions - is relevant and common. But still, I would go with the non-jargon form.
dconfig is better, because google can be confused - dconf is known project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf
The length is not too important when we have tab complete
Regards
Pavel
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: