| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 17:14:49 |
| Message-ID: | 2489998D-D530-45CB-80F8-F14BB8084261@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
> include system catalogs. We could add the additional rule that
> the above statements apply only when a pattern is specified, and
> without a pattern you get just user stuff (so omitting a pattern
> corresponds to pattern "*" with the U modifier, not just "*").
> This would probably make it a bit easier to have exactly the same
> rules across the board.
>
> Again, "\dfS" would be a bit useless, unless we say that the implicit
> U modifier for no pattern doesn't override an explicit S modifier.
>
> Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
So would "\df" then be equivalent to "\dU"? Or am I misunderstanding
something?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 17:15:04 | Re: GetCurrentVirtualXIDs() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 17:13:33 | Re: SnapshotResetXmin |