2012/8/7 Peter Geoghegan :
> On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
>>> ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
>>> Its primary charter is to suppor
2012/8/7 Tom Lane :
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short, the only redeeming value of this patch is that it's short.
>
>> One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync
>> with the dialect that's supported. Anything that doesn't u
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync with
>> the dialect that's supported. Anything that doesn't use the backend's parser
>> seems to me to be guaranteed to get out of sync very quickly.
On 7 August 2012 20:01, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
>> ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
>> Its primary charter is to support pg_dump by regurgitating rules/
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, the only redeeming value of this patch is that it's short.
> One of the challenges is to have a pretty printer that is kept in sync
> with the dialect that's supported. Anything that doesn't use the
> backend's parser
On 08/07/2012 02:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
* As per some of the complaints already registered in this thread,
ruleutils.c is not designed with the goal of being a pretty-printer.
Its primary charter is to support pg_dump by regurgitating rules/views
in an unambiguous form, which does not necessari
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 04:14:34PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
>>
>> Here is patch:
> I can see this as very useful for people reporting badly-formatted
> queries to our email lists. Great!
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:54:12PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2012/8/7 Thom Brown :
> > On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some
> >> queries.
> >>
> >> Here is patch:
> >>
> >> this patch is really s
On 08/07/2012 10:14 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it doesn't format
subqueries well
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 04:14:34PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
>
> Here is patch:
>
> this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
> known database objects (probably we would it) and it
2012/8/7 Thom Brown :
> On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
>>
>> Here is patch:
>>
>> this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
>> known database objects (probably we woul
On 7 August 2012 15:14, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
>
> Here is patch:
>
> this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
> known database objects (probably we would it) and it doesn't format
> su
Hello
last year we are spoke about reusing pretty print view code for some queries.
Here is patch:
this patch is really short - it is nice. But - it works only with
known database objects (probably we would it) and it doesn't format
subqueries well
postgres=# select pg_pretty_query('select x.*
13 matches
Mail list logo
