ne 9. 4. 2023 v 3:54 odesílatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
> Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > > I'm not sure if the *prompt* is a sensible place for it though. The > > place it seems like it would be most useful is reading the output of > > script executions where there would be no prompts. Perhaps it's the > > command tags and \echo statements that should be timestamped. > > Hmm, that is an interesting idea. I kind of like it, not least because > it eliminates most of the tension between wanting a complete timestamp > and wanting a short prompt. Command tags are short enough that there's > plenty of room. > I don't agree so there is a common request for a short prompt. Usually I use four terminals on screen, and still my terminal has a width of 124 characters (and I use relatively small display of my Lenovo T520). Last years I use prompt like: (2023-04-09 06:08:30) postgres=# select 1; ┌──────────┐ │ ?column? │ ╞══════════╡ │ 1 │ └──────────┘ (1 row) and it is working. Nice thing when I paste the timestamp in examples. I have not any problems with prompt width Regards Pavel
