Re: [HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:05:16PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > I'd like to propose a wiki to-do item for a backslash command in psql which > would show all installable extensions, basically just a wrapper around > 'select * from pg_available_extensions'. > > I've wanted it a few times recently, mostly in testing. If your psql has libreadline, you can CREATE EXTENSION and get a list. It doesn't distinguish between installed ones and available, though. > Any reason this wouldn't be desirable? What should it be called? I thought > of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects associated with the > extensions. (Althought it seems like it would more in keeping with other > usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it was given a pattern, and did > what I propose if given no pattern) For what it's worth, of the proposals so far, I like \dxa most. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
Dne 12.1.2015 22:26 "Tom Lane" napsal(a): > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Jeff Janes wrote: > >> I thought of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects > >> associated with the extensions. (Althought it seems like it would > >> more in keeping with other usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it > >> was given a pattern, and did what I propose if given no pattern) > > > I hate the pattern/no pattern discrepancy -- I vote not to propagate it > > any further. > > The set of things that is known about an installed extension is quite > a bit different from what is known about an uninstalled-but-available > one. To make \dx print both categories would require dumbing it down > to print only the intersection of those things, or else some fancy > footwork and a lot of NULL column values. -1 for that. (This is exactly > why pg_available_extensions is separate from pg_extension in the first > place.) > > I'm okay with inventing some new command like "\dxu" or "\dxa" (mnemonic > "uninstalled" or "available" respectively). I like \dxa Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Jeff Janes wrote: >> I thought of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects >> associated with the extensions. (Althought it seems like it would >> more in keeping with other usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it >> was given a pattern, and did what I propose if given no pattern) > I hate the pattern/no pattern discrepancy -- I vote not to propagate it > any further. The set of things that is known about an installed extension is quite a bit different from what is known about an uninstalled-but-available one. To make \dx print both categories would require dumbing it down to print only the intersection of those things, or else some fancy footwork and a lot of NULL column values. -1 for that. (This is exactly why pg_available_extensions is separate from pg_extension in the first place.) I'm okay with inventing some new command like "\dxu" or "\dxa" (mnemonic "uninstalled" or "available" respectively). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
* Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote: > I'd like to propose a wiki to-do item for a backslash command in psql which > would show all installable extensions, basically just a wrapper around > 'select * from pg_available_extensions'. I guess I don't feel very strongly for or against adding a backslash command for this, but just wanted to mention that you can use table, as in: table pg_available_extensions; Slightly shorter. :) Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
Jeff Janes wrote: > I'd like to propose a wiki to-do item for a backslash command in psql which > would show all installable extensions, basically just a wrapper around > 'select * from pg_available_extensions'. > > I've wanted it a few times recently, mostly in testing. +1. > Any reason this wouldn't be desirable? No idea. I guess if pg_available_extensions is acceptable, a \-command should be acceptable as well. But you might as well look up the old discussions that led to the current situation where we have an SRF and not a \-command. > What should it be called? \dxx / \dxi ? As long as it shows in \dx I am fine with almost anything sensible, really. > I thought of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects > associated with the extensions. (Althought it seems like it would > more in keeping with other usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it > was given a pattern, and did what I propose if given no pattern) I hate the pattern/no pattern discrepancy -- I vote not to propagate it any further. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] To do for psql to show installable extensions
I'd like to propose a wiki to-do item for a backslash command in psql which would show all installable extensions, basically just a wrapper around 'select * from pg_available_extensions'. I've wanted it a few times recently, mostly in testing. Any reason this wouldn't be desirable? What should it be called? I thought of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects associated with the extensions. (Althought it seems like it would more in keeping with other usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it was given a pattern, and did what I propose if given no pattern) Cheers, Jeff
