"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It might be cute to see if the pattern matches any user functions and if not >> try again with system functions. So you would still get results if you did >> "\df rtrim" for example. > > Interesting idea. IIUC, \df would give you either all user functions > *or* all system functions depending on the actual catalog contents, > while \dfS would always give you just system functions. That means > there'd be no way to replicate the all-functions-of-both-types behavior > that has been the default in every prior release. That sounds like > a recipe for getting complaints --- changing the default behavior is > one thing, but making it so that that behavior isn't available at > all is surely going to break somebody's code or habitual usage.
Actually on further thought I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler (and perhaps more consistent with \d) to just list *all* matches iff a pattern is provided but list only user functions if *no* pattern is provided. That would effectively be exactly the current behaviour except that you would have to do \dfS to get a list of system functions. And yeah, you wouldn't be able to get a list of all functions whether system or user functions. I suppose you could do \df * One --perhaps nice, perhaps not-- property of this is that if you defined a function named "rtrim" and then did "\df rtrim" it would show you _both_ the system and user function and make it easier to see the conflict. Whereas the other behaviour I proposed would hide the system function which might exacerbate the user's confusion. > BTW, should we remove the special hack that discriminates against > showing I/O functions (or really anything that touches cstring) in \df? > ISTM that was mostly there to reduce clutter, and this proposal solves > that problem more neatly. I know I've cursed that behavior under my > breath more than once, but again maybe my usage isn't typical. . o O Ohh! That's why I can never find them! -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches