Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch

* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> I like this behavior. A lot.

ditto.

> That was a little irritating but I get the point. The schema functions
> is not in my search path. So:

That's exactly right, imv..  I've got schemas with tons of functions in
them, I don't want to see every function in every schema in my
database every time I do \df..

> The above is broken. If I put functions in my search path and perform a
> \df I should get user functions from public and functions.

Agreed, 100%.  That's definitely busted.

> So to me, the patch needs to be fixed. It should search whatever is in
> my search path. It should further properly reflect what I am searching
> on in its header (List of User Defined Functions).

I agree, though the header isn't a huge deal to me.

> I do not see any usefulness to searching *ALL* functions except on that
> rare occasion where you do them, "Where did I create that function
> again?". You can use pg_dump -s for that.

or pg_proc, and doesn't information_schema have some view?

> Further I would also be perfectly happy with the following behavior:
>
> \df does nothing but return:
>
> \df <please specify \dfU or \dfS or \dfA)

gah, I find that to be terrible.  If we wanted to compromise, I'd
rather have \df do what it does today, to keep backwards-compat and
not confuse users, and \dfU to do what I want 99% of the time.  That's
a better compromise than both changing \df *and* making it useless, if
we have to compromise.

On a seperate (kind of) note, I'd really like to be able to say "I want
this function visible everywhere" like a system function.  public really
doesn't fit this bill very well, in my experience.
Thanks,
    Stephen