From: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql and output from \? |
Date: | 2002-03-11 22:44:18 |
Message-ID: | 200203112244.XAA01294@post.webmailer.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 11 March 2002 19:26, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Something that's also annoyed me for a while is that the PLACEHOLDER
> > strings are inconsistent in whether they describe the data type or the
> > semantics of the argument. I think the data type is ultimately more
> > useful, as the semantics come from the documentation string by
> > definition.
> >
> > So instead of \C TITLE maybe better \C STRING, and instead of \d TABLE
> > use \d IDENTIFIER (or maybe NAME). The latter has two advantages: First
> > you're not passing \d a table descriptor, if there was such a thing. And
> > second, it informs the user that the SQL identifier quoting rules will
> > apply to the argument. I guess FILENAME and DIRNAME are ok as "data
> > types", but all the other stuff can go, I think.
>
> I can understand a more formal indicator in the documentation, but for
> \? it is really just quick help, and showing SEPARATOR rather than the more
> generic STRING is clearer, I think.
My first reaction would be "now what counts as a separator?", because it
sounds like some kind of special character, whereas with STRING it's
clear to me I can use any set of characters I like.
This is not an issue I would lose sleep over however.
Ian Barwick
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-11 22:46:11 | Re: psql and output from \? |
Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-03-11 22:35:15 | Re: psql and output from \? |