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
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 st
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 breaki
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
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
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 re
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 sh
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
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 fundament
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
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
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
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 , because they
> > reflect
> > my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
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
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 f
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 , because they
>>>reflect
>>>my in
> Anything other than simple, short commands is a waste, IMHO. I can easily
> remember SHOW DATABASES and SHOW TABLES and DESC , 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 bui
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 find
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 ar
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 s
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 , because they
> > reflect
> > my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
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 , because they
> reflect
> my intensions directly and 'make sense'.
What makes sense to me in csh does
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
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
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 bac
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.
>
> T
26 matches
Mail list logo
