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 <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >>On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Greg Stark <st...@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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
