I have added this psql backslash discussion to TODO.detail.
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
But this interacts with point 3 (psql breaks on every new backend
version). It's not desirable to have every GUI
Tom Lane wrote:
But this interacts with point 3 (psql breaks on every new backend
version). It's not desirable to have every GUI and large custom
program implementing its own set of metadata inquiry commands: they
all have to go through the same update pain as psql. Perhaps if
people start
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Another problem with pushing psql's queries into the backend is that
much of the output that psql makes is not a single table. Sometimes
there is more than one table, or the information is in the table
footers.
Yes, pushing the \xx commands
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
2. Some people aren't using psql.
I don't see why this is an issue. People not using psql are either
using a GUI, which presumably supports plenty of show and describe
functionality, or they're writing their own program, in which
On Saturday 10 January 2004 19:16, Jon Jensen wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM there are three fundamental problems with \d and friends:
1. Some people have a hard time remembering the commands.
2. Some people aren't using psql.
3. psql keeps breaking across
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:59:02PM -0600, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they
reflect
my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
Kevin Brown wrote:
Every database engine is different, but in the case of PG it makes
sense to adopt the best methods we can find. A consistent and easy
to remember way of showing the various entities in psql (at the very
least) would be of great advantage. It's something that MySQL gets
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
to remember way of showing the various entities in psql (at the very
least) would be of great advantage. It's something that MySQL gets
right. As it turns out, we already have SHOW in psql and it's used
for something else.
What is wrong
Dennis Björklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rather have long commands so one can write
\describe_table foo
I would think it would be better to keep everything under a single command and
have a 1-1 correspondence to \d. Ie, just add a long form syntax following the
existing \d. \d
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So for example:
\describe table foo = \dt foo
\describe index foo = \di foo
\describe aggregate foo = \da foo
\describe operator foo = \do foo
It doesn't seem to me that this buys much except verboseness, though.
ISTM there are three fundamental
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM there are three fundamental problems with \d and friends:
1. Some people have a hard time remembering the commands.
2. Some people aren't using psql.
3. psql keeps breaking across backend versions because the
needed
Tom Lane wrote:
2. Some people aren't using psql.
I don't see why this is an issue. People not using psql are either
using a GUI, which presumably supports plenty of show and describe
functionality, or they're writing their own program, in which case it
doesn't really matter how short
Dennis Björklund wrote:
What is wrong with
SELECT * FROM information_schema.tables;
The result is very hard to read since it's so much of it (try column
instead of tables). The \xx commands do some nice formatting you
don't get from the above.
This is an interesting point to remember
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:59:02PM -0600, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they
reflect
my intensions directly
Hi,
2) (using information schema ... little better)
SELECT table_name FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_schema
= 'public';
or ...
...
I just looked at the information_schema. It is a very nice feature, but
difficult to use in psql.
I just wanted to see, what I can find
Thomas Swan wrote:
The \d* commands work from psql but not from anywhere else.Try
getting the information from a PHP script by sending a \dS query. It
doesn't work. If the same queries were stored in the backend and
referenced by psql and also could be referenced by other scripts, this
I think moving the \d and simliar features in psql
to SQL is a good idea. That will make the features
available in any client library. As for the syntax,
maybe a investigation is needed.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:25:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still
have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL
I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they
reflect
my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
Can you remember how to get a list of indexes on a particular table? How
about a specific indexes
Am Sonntag, 4. Januar 2004 20:13 schrieb Alex J. Avriette:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:25:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still
...
/functions
/databases
...
Long options sounds really good. It is like GNU-tools. A single -
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:59:02PM -0600, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they
reflect
my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
What makes sense to me in csh
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:59:02PM -0600, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC table, because they
reflect
my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
Couldn't agree more - syntax like
SHOW TABLES;
is inituitive and somehow right - [chuckles] - Mysql does not have
*everything* wrong!
regards
Mark
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I like the idea of adding a new syntax to show that information using
simple SQL command syntax, and putting it in the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am starting to agree that our \d* handling is just too overloaded.
Look at the option list from \?:
Can anyone remember all those?
Yes.
I like the idea of adding a new syntax to show that information using
simple SQL command syntax, and putting it in the backend so
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:25:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still
have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL
I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that
data in
D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
When I started with PostgreSQL and MySQL, MySQL was far easier
to use
I started with MySQL and it WAS easier to use. It was easier because
the manual essentially reads:
-- we didn't implement anything complicated that's why
-- we are fast.
The only SQL
26 matches
Mail list logo
