Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:23:19 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Thibaud W." <thibaud.walkowiak@dalibo.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about
 large objects
Message-ID: <20220603152319.GA2627191@nathanxps13>
References: <43f0439c-df3e-a045-ac99-af33523cc2d4@dalibo.com>
 <20220602214625.GA2494933@nathanxps13>
 <2e872233-1642-439c-dd94-56fc25d398cb@dalibo.com>
 <20220603143921.GA2624579@nathanxps13>
 <216601.1654269131@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <216601.1654269131@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220603152319.GA2627191%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

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 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 server are mostly further up.  My first thought is to move it
> to just after the "Informational" group, but I'm not especially
> set on that.  Making it not-last might make it harder to get away
> with the inconsistent indentation, though.

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.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com