On 3/11/17 07:06, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am sending a updated version with separated sort direction in special > variable
This patch also needs a rebase.
I am sending rebased patch
rebased again + fix obsolete help
For me, patch applies cleanly, builds and passed regression tests.
However, patch misses regression tests covering added functionality.
I am not sure if there are any tests related to output of \dt+ commands - there result is platform depend.
BTW, why isn't order by name_schema available for \dt? If it's available we could at least cover this case by plain regression tests.
\dt+ could be covered by TAP tests, but it isn't yet. I think one day we should add them. However, I don't think we should force you to write them in order to push this simple patch.
Patch is definitely harmless, i.e. it doesn't affect anybody who doesn't use new functionality.
But I still would prefer ordering to be options of \d* commands while psql variables be defaults for those options...
I understand
a) I don't think so commands like \dt++ (or similar) is good idea - these commands should be simple how it is possible
I don't particularly like \dt++, but second argument is probably an option.
b) this patch doesn't block any other design - more it opens the door because the executive part will be implemented and users can have a experience with with different output sorts - so if people will need more quick change of result sort, then the work in this area will continue.
OK. As reviewer, I'm not going to block this patch if you see its functionality limited by just psql variables.
I think you should add support of name_schema \dt and some regression tests for this case, before I can mark this as "ready for committer".
------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
