| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Date: | 2009-01-16 18:43:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1232131438.16299.31.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
> > different list of stuff than what the same command would display
> > without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's a bad idea
> > regardless of which particular backslash-sequence we're talking about.
>
> Well, I'm perfectly happy to drop that stipulation and just go with
>
> \df -- all
> \dfS -- system only
> \dfU -- non-system only
>
> but are we willing to change \d and \dt to work that way too?
> Or should we leave them inconsistent?
>
I would prefer them consistent.
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-16 18:52:52 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 18:37:55 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |