Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, gavin(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql
Date: 2008-09-06 22:32:52
Message-ID: 26232.1220740372@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> The principle of least astonishment suggests that \ef should behave in
>>> the same way as \e.
>>
>> Quite.

> So, are they consistent now or do we need another patch?

They are consistent, I just don't like either of them ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-09-06 22:34:56 Re: About that CommitFest redirect page ...
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-09-06 22:30:37 Re: reducing statistics write overhead