On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 01:02:36PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 01/25/2014 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >>On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>Indeed even aside from the performance questions, once you're indented
> >>>5-10 times the indention stops being useful at all. The query would
> >>>probably be even more readable if we just made indentation modulo 40
> >>>so once you get too far indented it "wraps around" which is not unlike
> >>>how humans actually indent things in this case.
> >>Ha! That seems a little crazy, but *capping* the indentation at some
> >>reasonable value might not be dumb.
> >I could go for either of those approaches, if applied uniformly, and
> >actually Greg's suggestion sounds a bit better: it seems more likely
> >to preserve some readability in deeply nested constructs.
> >
> >With either approach you need to ask where the limit value is going
> >to come from. Is it OK to just hard-wire a magic number, or do we
> >need to expose a knob somewhere?
> >
> >
>
>
> Simply capping it is probably the best bang for the buck. I suspect
> most people would prefer to have "q1 union q2 union q3 union q4"
> with the subqueries all indented to the same level. But I understand
> the difficulties in doing so.
>
> A knob seems like overkill. I'd just hardwire some number, say three
> or four levels of indentation.
Did we address this?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +