> ... and that was already proposed for "show schemas" (namespaces).
>
> I'm inclined to think it's time to bite the bullet and go over to
> words rather than single characters to identify the \d target
> (viz, "\dschema", "\dcast", etc, presumably with unique abbreviations
> being allowed, as well as special cases for the historical single
> characters).
Hmmm...I'm not certain that the \d commands really NEED to have a logical
link to the actual thing you're listing. If you just made \dh for schemas,
people would look it up and then remember it from then on. It's probably
not a huge deal.
We could do DESCRIBE commands as well. Also, what happened to the
INFORMATION_SCHEMA proposal? Wasn't Peter E doing something with that?
What happened to it?
> The issue here is what do we do with the existing "\d[istvS]" behavior
> (for instance, "\dsit" means "list sequences, indexes, and tables").
> Is that useful enough to try to preserve, or do we just bit-bucket it?
> If we do try to preserve it, how should it work?
I'd much rather it were preserved, and I'm sure most people would as well.
Chris
