From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Consistent \d commands in psql |
Date: | 2008-04-01 23:19:10 |
Message-ID: | 87abkd5fkh.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> If I read Greg's latter proposal correctly, he was suggesting
>
>> \df Lists all user functions
>> \df [pattern] Lists both system and user functions matching [pattern]
>> \df * Lists all system and user functions
>
> Hmm, I must've misread it, because I didn't understand it quite like
> that. That seems like a nice simple minimal-featuritis approach.
Sorry if was confusing but yes, that is what I intended by my second proposal.
I prefer it to my own first proposal or any of the others.
I admit I was thinking primarily of non-globbing cases for pattern. As in, I
would want \df rtrim to "work". I suppose it could be annoying to have to type
\df public.* -- there's nothing stopping us from having \dfU and \dfS too I
suppose, though I doubt most people would find them.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-02 02:12:05 | Re: script binaries renaming |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-01 22:34:48 | Re: Consistent \d commands in psql |