Dne 12.1.2015 22:26 "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal(a): > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Jeff Janes wrote: > >> I thought of \dx+, but the + is already used to show the objects > >> associated with the extensions. (Althought it seems like it would > >> more in keeping with other usage if \dx+ only listed the objects if it > >> was given a pattern, and did what I propose if given no pattern) > > > I hate the pattern/no pattern discrepancy -- I vote not to propagate it > > any further. > > The set of things that is known about an installed extension is quite > a bit different from what is known about an uninstalled-but-available > one. To make \dx print both categories would require dumbing it down > to print only the intersection of those things, or else some fancy > footwork and a lot of NULL column values. -1 for that. (This is exactly > why pg_available_extensions is separate from pg_extension in the first > place.) > > I'm okay with inventing some new command like "\dxu" or "\dxa" (mnemonic > "uninstalled" or "available" respectively).
I like \dxa Regards Pavel > > 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
