Greg Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > 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. Uh, that change got applied last week ... http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-04/msg00014.php > 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. Perhaps, but is it really important? I haven't noticed that those things were cluttering my \df searches anyway. BTW, I hesitate to mention this and perhaps upset a fragile consensus, but should we remove the special-case code in \df that tries to hide I/O functions by excluding functions that take or return cstring? I think that its value has largely disappeared given the new overall behavior. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
