"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> \df Lists all user functions
>>> \df [pattern] Lists both system and user functions matching [pattern]
>>> \df * Lists all system and user functions
>> I don't like this for two reasons: the items returned changes based on
>> the existence of args, rather than on the command itself, and more
>> importantly, this would make it inconsistent with the other backslash
> I think you misunderstood the context of the discussion. Whatever we do
> will be done to the whole family of \d commands --- we are just using
> \df as an exemplar.
Hm, I didn't realize that. I thought the reason \df was special was that users
often need to refer to "system" functions. Whereas they never need to refer to
system tables or system sequences etc unless they know that's what they're
However, now that I look at the list of \d commands that argument kind of
falls flat. Users also need to find "system" operators, data types, etc.
And I think the same logic as \df applies for those other things too. \dt
pg_class should "just work". And if you create a macaddr data type it doesn't
seem like too much of an imposition to play it safe and have \dT macaddr show
the user that there are now two matching data types.
So I guess I should just play along and pretend that's what I meant all along
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: