| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, 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 17:40:02 |
| Message-ID: | 8419.1232127602@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:14 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> 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?
> \df would act as it does now. Showing you *everything*.
Which part of the quoted paragraph didn't you read?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 17:41:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Question regarding new windowing functions in 8.4devel |
| Previous Message | Gianni Ciolli | 2009-01-16 17:39:11 | FATAL: could not open relation pg_tblspc/491086/467369/491103: No such file or directory |