On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:07:36 +0100 Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm starting to think D'Arcy's on the right track here.
Is that the train coming? :-) > Keep in mind the use case here is as Alvaro says, just a user convenience > thing. It's not meant for file dumps and loads. If we're going to display an > ascii table we may as well use the same formatting as other tools so it can be > copy/pasted in. Well, Tom makes a good point about trying to make it fit one specific markup language perfectly. The important thing here is that it stand on its own as a nice display. > Given that it's just a user convenience thing then I'm not sure the escaping > is necessarily a big deal. If the user happens to have any backslashes in > their data they can always stick a replace() call in their SQL. Perhaps we > should prove a rest_escape() function for that purpose. I think that a setting is just a lot cleaner. Remember, the use case here is that someone wants to do an ad-hoc query and drop it into some other tool. A simple "SELECT * FROM table" should work. > I wonder if it's worth keeping two variants at all really. Why not just make > psql's native table formatting exactly ReST? Is there any part of it that we > don't like as much as our existing tables? No, Tom is right. This should not be a ReST format. For one thing, the user may just want the extra lines and any escaping/formatting would get in their way. And what do you mean by "native?" Border 0? Border 1? Border 2? I think that "principle of least surprise" demands that these not change on a user. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers