Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-02 Thread Nathan Bossart
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Thibaud W. wrote: > Attached is a small patch to add a description to the meta commands > regarding > large objects. This seems reasonable to me. Your patch wasn't applying for some reason, so I created a new one with a commit message and some small adjus

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Thibaud W.
On 6/2/22 23:46, Nathan Bossart wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Thibaud W. wrote: Attached is a small patch to add a description to the meta commands regarding large objects. This seems reasonable to me. Your patch wasn't applying for some reason, so I created a new one with a

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Nathan Bossart
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:12:30AM +0200, Thibaud W. wrote: > In fact the original tabs were missing in the first file. > In version v2, it seems interesting to keep calls to the fprintf function > for translation. I attached a new file. Yes, it looks like the precedent is to have an fprintf() per

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Tom Lane
Nathan Bossart writes: > Yes, it looks like the precedent is to have an fprintf() per command. I > still think the indentation needs some adjustment for readability. In the > attached, I've lined up all the large object commands. This is offset from > most other commands, but IMO this is far ea

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Nathan Bossart
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:12:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > * How about "write large object to file" and "read large object from > file"? As it stands, if you are not totally sure which direction is > export and which is import, this description teaches you little. +1 > * While we're here, it se

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Tom Lane
Nathan Bossart writes: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:12:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> * While we're here, it seems like this whole group was placed at the >> end because of add-it-to-the-end-itis, not because that was the >> most logical place for it. The other commands that interact with >> the

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-03 Thread Nathan Bossart
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:56:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Bossart writes: >> Another option could be to move it after the "Input/Output" section so that >> it's closer to some other commands that involve files. I can't say I have >> a strong opinion about whether/where to move it, though

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-05 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Le ven. 3 juin 2022 à 19:29, Nathan Bossart a écrit : > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:56:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Nathan Bossart writes: > >> Another option could be to move it after the "Input/Output" section so > that > >> it's closer to some other commands that involve files. I can't say

Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

2022-06-07 Thread Thibaud W.
On 6/3/22 19:29, Nathan Bossart wrote: On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:56:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Nathan Bossart writes: Another option could be to move it after the "Input/Output" section so that it's closer to some other commands that involve files. I can't say I have a strong opinion about