Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates
Date: 2004-09-09 17:08:25
Message-ID: 6996.1094749705@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> ISTM one problem is we are inconsistent about it - \d and \dt don't
> show system objects, but \df shows system functions. Reading TFM is a
> good thing, but so is consistency.

Well, one of the subarguments here is whether we are going to change the
behavior of the table-related \d commands too. If we choose a modifier
other than S for \df, I'd be inclined to adopt the same behavior for the
table commands.

> '-' isn't a very nice choice, because \df-+ would be really confusing.
> If you don't like '&', then '@' and '!' seem to be at least as free as
> '-' ;-)

[ shrug ] But '-' has the correct implication that you're removing
something. Those other symbols are just arbitrary. I'd like to pick
something with at least some mnemonic value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-09-09 17:24:42 Re: translations
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-09-09 16:58:23 Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates