Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates
Date
Msg-id 200409091033.i89AXSv04543@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates  ("Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>)
Responses Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates  ("Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>)
Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
> 
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  
>  
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > Well there's always \dtS and \dvS I don't see why typing \dfS is any harder.
> >
> > It would be nice for this to be more visible in the documentation and the \?
> > output though. I've only just found it after months of pulling hair out
> > looking for something just like it
>  
> Robert Treat replied:
> > Wow you're not kidding. I've been using postgresql for I don't know how
> > many years and I don't think I'd ever noticed that before.  ISTM that we
> > can make \df return only user function and \dfS return the system
> > functions, and this would be consitant with how we handle other options.
> > Just make sure to reword \? out put to make it clear that adding S will
> > show system objects.
>  
> So it seems there are two possible solutions to the problem of segregating
> user and system objects: change the order by or change the backslash operators.
> I like the latter way, as it seems consistent with what we already are doing
> (e.g. \dt \di) How about if we change the rest of the \d operators that support
> custom objects to support the "S" option? I would affect the following:
>  
> \da \dc \dd \df \do \dT
>  
> I would rewrite the \? docs to make this more clear as well.

Agreed it would be nice to more clearly distingush user functions from
system ones, but how?  I can't see how 'S' is going to help us because
\dS already shows system tables.  Would it be \dfS?  What is the logic
to that?  Having 'S' be a flag and a command is too confusing. 

And what about \dn.  Seems showing system schemas vs ordinary schemas
would make sense too.  I wonder if just telling to people focus on the
schema name is the best bet.  

Another idea is to add a flag to skip system stuff like '-', so \df-
doesn't show system stuff.  Same for the others.  That does make sense
to me.  I know it isn't logical for \d but \d is for storage, while the
others are different in that system tables aren't normally accessed by
users, while system functions/schemas are.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dennis Bjorklund
Date:
Subject: translations
Next
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
Subject: Re: psql questions: SQL, progname, copyright dates