| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql backslash consistency |
| Date: | 2005-05-27 20:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200505272035.j4RKZwW04686@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > > I see hardly any use case for showing only user-defined functions
> > > or types by default. I think consistency is not necessarily
> > > desirable here.
> >
> > See the archives for previous discussion and/or use cases.
>
> I didn't find any. Nevertheless, while there are undoubtedly some uses
> for everything, making this the default behavior does not seem
> acceptable.
I think the logical issue is that a database with no user tables is
useless/empty, so showing only user tables makes sense, while a database
with no user functions is still useful, and in fact I would think most
databases have no user functions.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-05-27 21:14:57 | Re: psql backslash consistency |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-27 20:16:15 | Re: psql backslash consistency |