Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 653496D0-5C9B-4C7C-835C-82314C4F5F66@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
How many of the people who find the new behaviour are mainly postgres hackers and not users? I remember finding the behaviour *very* frustrating when I was a user and was mainly concerned with maintaining my own functions. I hardly ever used \df for system functions. Now the situation is reversed - I mainly work with test databases with simple schemas. But it's common for users to have hundreds of functions - and much more likely that they would want to look them up by name. -- Greg On 15 Jan 2009, at 16:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> The basic goal of the patch was to make 'S' consistent for all \d >> backslash commands, and we had a lot of discussion about it, and many >> people asked for it (I can't find my user functions). > > I think this falls in the category of "be careful what you wish for, > you might get it". It is now blindingly obvious that the folks asking > for that had not actually lived with the behavior for any period of > time. > > Personally I think we should just revert the patch and go back to the > behavior we've had for umpteen years. However, if you cannot bear to > leave well enough alone, how about *reversing* the sense --- that is, > default behavior is to show everything and there is an extra character > to omit system objects? > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: