| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Date: | 2009-01-16 19:50:20 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901161150r2c6224ddmaa63a7cca6af3644@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
>> different list of stuff than what the same command would display
>> without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's a bad idea
>> regardless of which particular backslash-sequence we're talking about.
>
> Well, I'm perfectly happy to drop that stipulation and just go with
>
> \df -- all
> \dfS -- system only
> \dfU -- non-system only
>
> but are we willing to change \d and \dt to work that way too?
> Or should we leave them inconsistent?
I think you should make:
\df - non-system only
\dfS - system only
\dfA - all
Then you could make \dt the same way, and it wouldn't involve breaking
the way \dt works now.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 20:01:43 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-16 19:44:06 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |