Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:14 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
>>> include system catalogs.  We could add the additional rule that
>>> the above statements apply only when a pattern is specified, and
>>> without a pattern you get just user stuff (so omitting a pattern
>>> corresponds to pattern "*" with the U modifier, not just "*").
>>> This would probably make it a bit easier to have exactly the same
>>> rules across the board.
>>> 
>>> Again, "\dfS" would be a bit useless, unless we say that the implicit
>>> U modifier for no pattern doesn't override an explicit S modifier.
>>> 
>>> Comments?  Does this cover all the cases?
>> 
>> So would "\df" then be equivalent to "\dU"? Or am I misunderstanding  
>> something?

> \df would act as it does now. Showing you *everything*.

Which part of the quoted paragraph didn't you read?
        regards, tom lane