Hi so 3. 1. 2026 v 21:04 odesílatel M.Atıf Ceylan <[email protected]> napsal:
> Hi, > As you mentioned, this issue has remained unresolved since 2017, and I > think we need to start somewhere. > While having it as a meta-command would provide a general solution, > having size-based sorting specific to tables/indexes wouldn't prevent > a future meta-command feature from being implemented. > Now, two backslash commands uses parameters, so we have some precedents \g (pset options) \watch attr=val I almost like a solution based on pset and possibility to use pset option for \describe commands \pset preferred_order SCHEMA_NAME_SORTED | SIZE_SORTED_DESC | SIZE_SORTED_DESC_ALWAYS \dt+ or just \dt+ (preferred_order=SIZE_SORTED_DESC) I don't think the length of text should be problematic, there is tab complete and history. The advantage is possibility to store setting to .psqlrc another solution is using attributes \dt+ o=size_desc It can works too, I think, but there is not possibility to set it for .psqlrc Personally, I think, both proposed solution can work together (command attributes has higher priority than pset options) I don't think so we need to implement fully generic or complex solution, because anybody can easily to modify buildin queries Both proposals are based on currently implemented design - there is large possibilities for design anything else, but maybe can be better to don't introduce new principes Regards Pavel > > Best regards, > > Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>, 3 Oca 2026 Cmt, 22:34 > tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 08:52, Pavel Stehule <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > st 26. 11. 2025 v 14:01 odesílatel Pavel Stehule < > [email protected]> napsal: > > >> > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> st 26. 11. 2025 v 13:44 odesílatel Euler Taveira <[email protected]> > napsal: > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025, at 4:48 AM, M.Atıf Ceylan wrote: > > >>> > Hello, > > >>> > This patch adds two new meta-command modifiers for \dt(+) and > \di(+): > > >>> > > > >>> > - O : sort by total relation size descending > > >>> > - o : sort by total relation size ascending > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your contribution. Register your patch in the next > commitfest [1] so > > >>> we don't loose track of it. > > >>> > > >>> I didn't look at your patch but I was wondering if a general > solution isn't a > > >>> better way to add this feature. I wouldn't modify these specific psql > > >>> meta-commands, instead, I would add a new psql meta-command that > defines this > > >>> property for all objects if applicable. > > >>> > > >>> \sort [ name | size [ asc | desc ] ] > > >>> > > >>> I thought about a list to be cover other sort cases too but if > things starting > > >>> to be complex, it is time to write your own query. > > >> > > >> > > >> It is big question - if there should be specialized metacommand, or > just variable or \pset setting > > >> > > >> it can be > > >> > > >> \set PREFERRED_ORDER size_desc > > >> \pset preffered_order size_desc > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> With a parameter, it appends the ORDER BY clause in the SQL commands > executed by > > >>> psql if applicable. Without a parameter, it uses the current > behavior. > > >> > > >> > > >> There were a lot of proposals related to this topic some years ago. I > wrote a lot of variants of this patch > > >> Generic design is very big, and solutions like proposed are not > generic :-). We talked about this feature for maybe more than one year, and > we didn't find a generally acceptable design. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRAVV2TFHsFCV=c9aaeq7kpwgqblkowgronpan583zq...@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> At the end I wrote pspg, and the sort can be done (over result) > there. Using a vertical cursor (column cursor) is very natural and user > friendly. > > >> > > >> https://github.com/okbob/pspg > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> Pavel > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/57/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Euler Taveira > > >>> EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/ > > >>> > > >>> > > > > Hi hackers. > > > > I noted that this patch cf entry has the status "Ready for committer" > > [0]. I do not think so. I see major design concerns in the proposal. > > For my 2c, I would vote for general-purpose separate \sort command or > > some suffix for meta-command as proposed by Pavel in thead from 2017. > > > > I also suggest to rename commitfest entry to describe "what" instead of > "how" > > > > > > [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6258/ > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Kirill Reshke > > > > -- > M.Atıf Ceylan >
