Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > ISTM one problem is we are inconsistent about it - \d and \dt don't
> > show system objects, but \df shows system functions. Reading TFM is a
> > good thing, but so is consistency.
>
> Well, one of the subarguments here is whether we are going to change the
> behavior of the table-related \d commands too. If we choose a modifier
> other than S for \df, I'd be inclined to adopt the same behavior for the
> table commands.
>
> > '-' isn't a very nice choice, because \df-+ would be really confusing.
> > If you don't like '&', then '@' and '!' seem to be at least as free as
> > '-' ;-)
>
> [ shrug ] But '-' has the correct implication that you're removing
> something. Those other symbols are just arbitrary. I'd like to pick
> something with at least some mnemonic value.
One question is whether we want to suppress system functions by default
in \df. From my perspective, the issue is whether we would use those
objects in normal application queries. Clearly we would use system
functions in application queries, so we display them. (We might be able
to suppress display of interally called functions if we still display
them). We don't refer to system tables in normal application queries so
it makes sense we don't display them by default.
As far as the symbol, I think we should keep letters as object
specifiers and not use 'S' to mean system. The idea for '&' was to say
"and system objects", and if we go for an options to supress system
objects, '-' seems best. I don't imagine people using -+ very often.
-- 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
