Re: psql \d commands and information_schema

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql \d commands and information_schema
Date: 2009-04-08 22:29:53
Message-ID: 24206.1239229793@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane escribi?:
>>> BTW, I hesitate to mention this and perhaps upset a fragile consensus,
>>> but should we remove the special-case code in \df that tries to hide I/O
>>> functions by excluding functions that take or return cstring? I think
>>> that its value has largely disappeared given the new overall behavior.
>>
>> +1

> Agreed.

Done.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-08 22:35:44 Re: GUC inconsistency in 8.4?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-08 22:11:59 Re: NaN support in NUMERIC data type