Attached patch applied, including documentation updates; I think this
is the best we are going to do to balance usability and consistency. I
have removed this as an open 8.4 item.
With this change \dfS and \df * do the same thing; I assume we don't
want to remove the 'S' modifier and tell
Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 30 March 2009 10:52:47 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to
\d* assume 'S' (include system objects). ?I
Robert Treat wrote:
Actually I find the inconsistency to hurt usability, which is typically what
you get with inconsistent interfaces.
I'm not certain, but I think I would be happier if we did:
\d*user space objects
\d*S include system objects
For those that want system only,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now I *have* a user function named sin(), it's not getting called
(which might surprise me if I didn't know there was a conflicting
system function) and \df doesn't show me either one.
I actually was expecting the above
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That still has the problem that \df a* is horribly inconsistent with
\df. It might be reasonable to assume that if a name without
wildcards is given to any \d command, it should display whatever
object it finds, user or system - but I can't see doing
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to \d*
assume 'S' (include system objects). I actually have a patch that does
that, attached. (It is from January so might need adjustment.)
That still has
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to \d*
assume 'S' (include system objects). I actually have a patch that does
that, attached. (It is from January so might need adjustment.)
---
Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
That still has the problem that \df a* is horribly inconsistent with
\df. It might be reasonable to assume that if a name without
wildcards is given to any \d command, it should
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to \d*
assume 'S' (include system objects). ?I actually have a patch that does
that, attached. (It is from January so might need
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to \d*
assume 'S' (include system objects). ?I actually have a
Hi,
Le 30 mars 09 à 16:52, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
I think the big question is whether the inconsistency (pattern implies
'S') is worth accepting for greater usability.
My answer is yes, please, definitely, go for it.
We don't need idiot-proof easy to remember semantics, we need useful
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 09:59:41PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le 30 mars 09 à 16:52, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
I think the big question is whether the inconsistency (pattern implies
'S') is worth accepting for greater usability.
My answer is yes, please, definitely, go for it.
We
On Monday 30 March 2009 10:52:47 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Maybe the best we are going to do is to have any pattern supplied to
\d* assume 'S' (include system objects). ?I actually have a patch that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think you should reconsider your non-buying of that argument. That
would be really, really annoying for me. Most of the time I want to
look at a user object. But every now and then I want to look at a
system object.
I still think that this
Tom Lane wrote:
I actually was expecting the above example to show me the user function,
which I was then going to rant about being a lie. But the actual
behavior is even worse than that.
There is not anything that is not broken about HEAD's behavior,
and the sooner we admit that the
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
So what is the proposal? Have U/S/A flags for all commands and have
different system display
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
So what is the proposal? Have U/S/A flags for all
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
So what is
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
The psql system object display issue has not been completely resolved
for 8.4; see 8.4 open items:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items#Changes
So what is the proposal? Have U/S/A flags for all commands and have
different system display default for each command?
I
20 matches
Mail list logo
