| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Consistent \d commands in psql |
| Date: | 2008-04-01 22:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 15731.1207088845@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If I read Greg's latter proposal correctly, he was suggesting
> \df Lists all user functions
> \df [pattern] Lists both system and user functions matching [pattern]
> \df * Lists all system and user functions
Hmm, I must've misread it, because I didn't understand it quite like
that. That seems like a nice simple minimal-featuritis approach.
One question: should \df really list *all* nonsystem functions? Or just
the ones that are visible in your search path? I'd be inclined to say
the second.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-01 22:34:48 | Re: Consistent \d commands in psql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-01 21:55:45 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |