Re: psql and output from \?
От | Ian Barwick |
---|---|
Тема | Re: psql and output from \? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200203112235.XAA27881@post.webmailer.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: psql and output from \? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: psql and output from \?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 11 March 2002 19:21, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I haven't seen a followup patch so I decided to work on it myself; > patch attached and applied to CVS. Thanks. I hang my head in shame and plead an unfortunate period of downtime due to an unplanned affliction with work :-( "Unfortunately" after submitting my suggestions I took a look at the source code (should have done it the other way round) and found a few more (minor) discrepancies between what \? says and what the various slash commands do. This mainly affects the various \d commands, many (but not all) of which take a regular expression ("pattern") as an optional argument. Particularly the following \? output: ...\d{t|i|s|v}... list tables/indexes/sequences/views\d{p|S|l} list access privileges, system tables, or large objects ... is misleading, because \dp and \dl can only be used on their own, whereas any combination of i, s, t, v and / or S can be used together: \dtvS is valid, whereas \dpSl is not. Also, \d{t|i|s|v|S} and \dp accept a regular expression as an argument, \dl does not. So with no further ado I humbly submit the attached patch, which builds on your patch and tidies up / harmonises the \? output. (If the patch itself is problematic, please let me know why and how I can fix it, it's the first patch I've submitted for PostgreSQL). Yours Ian Barwick
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: