| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df |
| Date: | 2009-04-21 16:30:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200904211630.n3LGUbA09550@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > \df[S+] [PATTERN] list functions
> > \df[antwS+] [PATTERN] list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions
>
> Shouldn't that second line have some curly braces? Like maybe:
>
> \df{antw}[S+] [PATTERN] list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions
>
> Technically, it should probably be even more verbose, but this might
> be adequate.
Agreed. The problem is I don't see curly braces used anywhere in \?,
but now that I look at it it is just because there is no need for them.
How about this:
\\df{antw}[S+] [PATRN] list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions
In a way though, they are really still optional, they are just not
optional for this specific line.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-04-21 16:33:26 | Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-04-21 16:26:13 | Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df |