| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Date: | 2009-01-16 19:17:52 |
| Message-ID: | 49708900.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
I tend to think that changing which schemas are searched based on the
presence or absence of a search pattern is a bad idea.
Is the bare form (no U or S) going to search all schemas or the ones
on the search path? Whatever the answer, do we need a way to get the
other?
+1 for consistency across all \d commands, even though I almost always
want to see just the user objects. IMO it's worth the extra keystroke
to be sure of what I'm seeing.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 19:37:48 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-01-16 18:54:33 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |