Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 496FB97A.5040500@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, > Well, maybe we do need to go with the \df \dfS \dfU approach. > But I'm still convinced that setting things up so that it's impossible > to search both classes of functions together is a seriously bad idea. Agreed -- there are times I *want* to search the system functions, and for less-trained users they might not know the difference between UDFs and builtin functions, especially if they've loaded a few contrib modules. Personally, I don't care that much about what Hungarian Notation we use, as long as we try to make it consistent with \dt, \dv, \dn etc. My main objection to requiring \dfU to get only user functions is that it's not what we do with \dt. --Josh
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: