From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates |
Date: | 2004-09-09 17:08:25 |
Message-ID: | 6996.1094749705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> ISTM one problem is we are inconsistent about it - \d and \dt don't
> show system objects, but \df shows system functions. Reading TFM is a
> good thing, but so is consistency.
Well, one of the subarguments here is whether we are going to change the
behavior of the table-related \d commands too. If we choose a modifier
other than S for \df, I'd be inclined to adopt the same behavior for the
table commands.
> '-' isn't a very nice choice, because \df-+ would be really confusing.
> If you don't like '&', then '@' and '!' seem to be at least as free as
> '-' ;-)
[ shrug ] But '-' has the correct implication that you're removing
something. Those other symbols are just arbitrary. I'd like to pick
something with at least some mnemonic value.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-09-09 17:24:42 | Re: translations |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-09-09 16:58:23 | Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates |