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

Re: psql backslash consistency

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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                        |
  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

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-05-27 21:14:57
Subject: Re: psql backslash consistency
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-05-27 20:16:15
Subject: Re: psql backslash consistency

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group