| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "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: | 2009-01-15 18:35:20 |
| Message-ID: | 9361.1232044520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not sure whether you're endorsing that approach or panning it, but
>> -1 from me. We have always had \d or \dt for user tables and \dS or
>> \dtS for system tables. No one is complaining about this AFAICS, so
>> we should \df be any different?
> You're ignoring the fact that tables and functions are different and
> are used differently.
BTW, it might be worth pointing out that \d has never worked like that;
for instance "\d pg_class" gives me an answer anyway. So holding up the
table behavior as a model of consistency that other \d commands should
emulate is a pretty weak argument to begin with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pasher | 2009-01-15 18:35:24 | Re: Autovacuum daemon terminated by signal 11 |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-15 18:34:15 | Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |