On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > We already had a huge discussion over 'S' and I think we did as good as > we can. I think we risk overcomplicating the API by adding U, but we > can revisit this in 8.5 once we get more feedback from users.
I think we'll need to take stock before 8.4 actually. Tom's pointed out a whole pile of problems with the current approach and I'm becoming convinced he's right. I know I was one of the proponents of the change but I didn't realize how bad the problems were. As I understand his proposal is that \df with no pattern could list all user functions but \df <pattern> should always follow the search_path and show the same functions that would actually be called. One possibility for reducing clutter would be moving a whole slew of the system functions which are never intended for users to call explicitly to a different schema which isn't implicitly added to search_path. That would at least get all the RI functions, bt procs, maybe even the operator functions out of the way. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
