From: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql and output from \? |
Date: | 2002-03-11 22:35:15 |
Message-ID: | 200203112235.XAA27881@post.webmailer.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 11 March 2002 19:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I haven't seen a followup patch so I decided to work on it myself;
> patch attached and applied to CVS. Thanks.
I hang my head in shame and plead an unfortunate period
of downtime due to an unplanned affliction with work :-(
"Unfortunately" after submitting my suggestions I took a look at
the source code (should have done it the other way round)
and found a few more (minor) discrepancies between what
\? says and what the various slash commands do.
This mainly affects the various \d commands, many (but not
all) of which take a regular expression ("pattern") as an optional
argument. Particularly the following \? output:
...
\d{t|i|s|v}... list tables/indexes/sequences/views
\d{p|S|l} list access privileges, system tables, or large objects
...
is misleading, because \dp and \dl can only be used on their own,
whereas any combination of i, s, t, v and / or S can be used together:
\dtvS is valid, whereas \dpSl is not. Also, \d{t|i|s|v|S} and \dp accept
a regular expression as an argument, \dl does not.
So with no further ado I humbly submit the attached patch, which builds on
your patch and tidies up / harmonises the \? output.
(If the patch itself is problematic, please let me know why and how I can
fix it, it's the first patch I've submitted for PostgreSQL).
Yours
Ian Barwick
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
psql_help.diff | text/plain | 8.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-03-11 22:44:18 | Re: psql and output from \? |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-03-11 22:32:22 | Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? |