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*.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> David
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
