Re: Consistent \d commands in psql

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!

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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