čt 12. 9. 2019 v 0:01 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> napsal:
On 2019-Jul-31, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> I had a look at this patch, seems like a useful thing to have.
So the two initial questions for this patch are
1. Is this a feature we want? 2. Is the user interface correct?
I think the feature is useful, and Rafia also stated as much. Therefore ISTM we're okay on that front.
As for the UI, Fabien thinks the patch adopts one that's far too simplistic, and I agree. Fabien has proposed a number of different UIs, but doesn't seem convinced of any of them. One of them was to have "options" in the command, \dt+ [-o 1d,2a]
Another idea is to use variables in a more general form. So instead of Pavel's proposal of SORT_BY_SIZE=on we could do something like SORT_BY=[list] where the list after the equal sign consists of predetermined elements (say SIZE, NAME, SCHEMA and so on) and indicates a specific column to sort by. This is less succint than Fabien's idea, and in particular you can't specify it in the command itself but have to set the variable beforehand instead.
for more generic design probably you need redesign psql report systems. You cannot to use just ORDER BY 1,2 on some columns, but you need to produce (and later hide) some content (for size).
So it can be unfunny complex patch. I finished sort inside pspg and I it looks to be better solution, than increase complexity (and less maintainability (due support old releases)).