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

Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: 2009-04-22 12:32:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:26:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [...]
> > I merged the entries into one line:
> > 
> > 	\df[antwS+] [PATTERN]  list (only agg/normal/trigger/window) functions
> > 
> > I didn't feel I had room to do [][] like Alvaro suggested.  I also went
> > with parntheses in the description.  Are brackets better there?
> FWIW brackets let the reader see better the correspondence between left and
> right.

True, but the problem is that the brackets don't correspond.  There are
two brackets on the left, options and "Pattern", and "S+" in the left
bracket is not related to the "only" options.  If we had used braces:

	\df{antw}[S+] [PATTERN]  list {only agg/normal/trigger/window} functions

that would make sense, but we don't have space nor are braces logically
correct for this usage.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-04-22 12:33:31
Subject: Re: Workaround for bug #4608?
Previous:From: K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)Date: 2009-04-22 12:21:46
Subject: Synch Replication: Synchronization of files between Primary & Standby

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