Обсуждение: pgsql and asciidoc output

Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
troff.

Would this be useful?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On 02/11/2014 11:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> troff.
>
> Would this be useful?
>

Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have
to choose one out of many.

I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown

--
Vik

On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> troff.
>
> Would this be useful?

Less so than Markdown[1], IMO. (Or CSV or xlsx, come to that.)

There’s a long list of potentially useful output formats. How pluggable
is the output formatter?

Cheers,
  Steve

[1] Markdown tables aren’t quite as built-in as asciidocs, but I suspect
a lot more people use markdown.

> From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

> To: PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:56
> Subject: [GENERAL] pgsql and asciidoc output
>
> Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> troff.
>
> Would this be useful?
>

Not sure about the arguments for and against either, but I'm rather fond of markdown
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown)


> --
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                            http://enterprisedb.com
>
>   + Everyone has their own god. +

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:32:32PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> > for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> > troff.
> >
> > Would this be useful?
>
> Less so than Markdown[1], IMO. (Or CSV or xlsx, come to that.)
>
> There’s a long list of potentially useful output formats. How pluggable
> is the output formatter?

It isn't hard to add new formats --- you are passed a table structure
and you printf the output.  Here is the HTML format output function:


http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/bin/psql/print.c;h=79fc43eeda3330873acbea4ad1c555e051e81d00;hb=HEAD#l1394

I did the latex-longtable format for PG 9.3.  The difficulty was
understanding the latex-longtable format specification, not writing the
C code.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:02:29AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>     Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have
>     to choose one out of many.
>
>     I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc.
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown
>
>
> Markdown is really well know now, and can be useful - but there is small
> differences between implementations - wikipedia, github, jira
> but implementation can be really nice

OK, great.  Would the markdown implementation differences affect the
psql table output, or are the differences in things we don't need to
worry about?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 08:48:49AM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> I second Bruce. I massively use asciidoc. I guess adding both asciidoc and md
> would not be too hard.

Agreed.  Assuming there are no objections, I will add it to the TODO
list.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On 2/11/14, 6:25 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc.

Markdown can embed HTML tables, so there is nothing that we need to
implement.