| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql backslash consistency |
| Date: | 2005-05-28 00:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | 2032.1117241147@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> writes:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 04:16:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There seems to be a distinct lack of unanimity about that judgment ;-)
> Well, yes, _across Postgres hackers_. But if we were to ask
> pgsql-general I have a feeling we would measure more weight on one side.
Yeah, but which side ;-) ? I think the pg-general population would have
a very much higher fraction of people who have no user-defined functions
and therefore would see no value in \df not showing system functions.
If we put in a config variable, that at least lowers the stakes for the
losing side in the argument about what the default should be. Without
that, I think there will be some serious flamewars ahead...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-28 02:21:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix PID file location? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-28 00:40:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix PID file location? |