Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: psql backslash consistency

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql backslash consistency
Date: 2005-05-28 00:45:47
Message-ID: 2032.1117241147@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 04:16:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There seems to be a distinct lack of unanimity about that judgment ;-)

> Well, yes, _across Postgres hackers_.  But if we were to ask
> pgsql-general I have a feeling we would measure more weight on one side.

Yeah, but which side ;-) ?  I think the pg-general population would have
a very much higher fraction of people who have no user-defined functions
and therefore would see no value in \df not showing system functions.

If we put in a config variable, that at least lowers the stakes for the
losing side in the argument about what the default should be.  Without
that, I think there will be some serious flamewars ahead...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-05-28 02:21:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix PID file location?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-05-28 00:40:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix PID file location?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group