Re: PATCH: psql boolean display
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-08-22T08:40:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2012/8/21 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: >> The type itself does output true/false; it's just psql that uses >> t/f. > > No, 't'/'f' is what boolout() returns. The 'true'/'false' results from > casting bool to text are intentionally different --- IIRC, Peter E. > argued successfully that this cast behavior is required by SQL spec. > But we'd already been returning 't'/'f' to applications for far too many > years to change it. (And that argument has not gotten any weaker since > then. Keep in mind that Postgres was returning 't'/'f' for bool years > before the SQL spec even had a boolean type.) > > If we're going to do something like this at all, I agree that psql is > the place to do it, not the server. But my beef with this patch is that > it's thinking too small --- why would bool be the only type that > somebody would want to editorialize on the display of? I'd rather see > some general "substitute this for that in display of columns of type X" > feature. > can you explain your idea, please? - I can't to imagine any general solution for other types than "enum" like types (without significant enhancing of psql scripting possibilities) Regards Pavel > regards, tom lane