Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRCVY_VvAn431gjySbfBP1nsj13R6BvHN+1FiW08ryNnWg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql
(Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
I just rechecked the thread. In my reading, lots of people argued
whether it should be called \rotate or \pivot or \crosstab; it seems the
\crosstabview proposal was determined to be best. I can support that
decision. But once the details were discussed, it was only you and
Daniel left in the thread; nobody else participated. While I understand
that you may think that "silence is consent", what I am afraid of is
that some committer will look at this two months from now and say "I
hate this Hcol+ stuff, -1 from me" and send the patch back for syntax
rework. IMO it's better to have more people chime in here so that the
patch that we discuss during the next commitfest is really the best one
we can think of.
I have not a feeling so we did some with Daniel privately. All work was public (I checked my mailbox) - but what is unhappy - in more mailing list threads (not sure how it is possible, because subjects looks same). The discus about the design was public, I am sure. It was relative longer process, with good progress (from my perspective), because Daniel accepts and fixed all my objection. The proposed syntax is fully consistent with other psql commands - hard to create something new there, because psql parser is pretty limited. Although I am thinking so syntax is good, clean and useful I am open to discuss about it. Please, try the last design, last patch - I spent lot of hours (and I am sure so Daniel much more) in thinking how this can be designed better.
Also, what about the business of putting "x" if there's no third column?
Three months from now some Czech psql hacker will say "we should use
Unicode chars for this" and we will be forever stuck with \pset
unicode_crosstab_marker to change the character to a ☑ BALLOT BOX WITH
CZECH. Maybe we should think that a bit harder -- for example, what
about just rejecting the case with no third column and forcing the user
to add a third column with the character they choose? That way you
avoid that mess.
These features are in category "nice to have". There are no problem to do in last commitfest or in next release cycle. It is not reason why to block commit of this feature, and I am sure so lot of users can be pretty happy with "basic" version of this patch. The all necessary functionality is there and working. We can continue on development in other cycles, but for this cycle, I am sure, so all necessary work is done.
> This feature has only small relation to SQL PIVOTING feature - it is just
> form of view and I am agree with Daniel about sense of this feature.
Yes, I don't disagree there. Robert Haas and David Fetter also
expressed their support for psql-side processing, so I think we're good
there.
great. Personally, I have not any objection against current state. If anybody has, please do it early. We can move to forward. This is nice feature, good patch, and there is not reason why stop here.
Regards
Pavel
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Следующее
От: Amit KapilaДата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby