Re: PATCH: psql boolean display

On 20 August 2012 23:06, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2012 5:56 PM, "Thom Brown" <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 August 2012 22:31, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 20, 2012 5:19 PM, "Phil Sorber" <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 20, 2012 5:11 PM, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2012/8/20 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> >> > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >> I am providing a patch to allow you to change the output of a
>> >> > >> boolean
>> >> > >> value in psql much like you can do with NULL. A client requested
>> >> > >> this
>> >> > >> feature and we thought it may appeal to someone else in the
>> >> > >> community.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The patch includes updated docs and a regression test. The code
>> >> > >> changes themselves are pretty simple and straightforward.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Example from the regression test:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> SELECT true, false;
>> >> > >> bool | bool
>> >> > >> ------+------
>> >> > >> t | f
>> >> > >> (1 row)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> \pset booltrue 'foo'
>> >> > >> \pset boolfalse 'bar'
>> >> > >> SELECT true, false;
>> >> > >> bool | bool
>> >> > >> ------+------
>> >> > >> foo | bar
>> >> > >> (1 row)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> \pset booltrue 't'
>> >> > >> \pset boolfalse 'f'
>> >> > >> SELECT true, false;
>> >> > >> bool | bool
>> >> > >> ------+------
>> >> > >> t | f
>> >> > >> (1 row)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> As always, comments welcome.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Why not just do it in the SQL?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > SELECT CASE WHEN whatever THEN 'foo' ELSE 'bar' END AS whatever;
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand this motivation - although I was more happy with server
>> >> > side solution.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Was a server side implementation submitted before? I can change it, but
>> >> I
>> >> did it on the client side like the null display was done.
>> >
>> > Or how about both?
>>
>> Surely one would break the other?
>>
>
> If using both.

Yes. :)

--
Thom