Re: psql \d* and system objects

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql \d* and system objects
Date: 2009-03-30 19:59:41
Message-ID: 6389263A-4878-4B85-9818-C01C525DDC55@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Le 30 mars 09 à 16:52, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> I think the big question is whether the inconsistency (pattern implies
> 'S') is worth accepting for greater usability.

My answer is yes, please, definitely, go for it.
We don't need idiot-proof easy to remember semantics, we need useful
ones... The former category is already taken care of by some other
open source database software, have I been told...

What about a mail with some content? Look, a user-level proposal
draft! :)
\dt lists user tables only
\dtS lists system tables only
\dt pattern lists matching user and system tables
\dfS pattern lists matching system tables only

\df lists user functions only
\dfS lists system functions only
\df pattern lists matching functions as per backend resolution
(search_path)
\dfS pattern lists matching system functions only, bypass search_path?

I think it's kind of easy to decline the concept, and I don't think
this will make unanimity. But what about dropping the consistency idea
(Tom is saying that it proved to be a damn bad one already) and from
there defining a usable tool?

Regards,
--
dim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2009-03-30 20:10:01 Re: Solaris getopt_long and PostgreSQL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-30 19:51:34 Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf