Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df
Date
Msg-id 200904211630.n3LGUbA09550@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>  
> > \df[S+] [PATTERN]      list functions
> > \df[antwS+] [PATTERN]  list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions
>  
> Shouldn't that second line have some curly braces?  Like maybe:
>  
> \df{antw}[S+] [PATTERN]  list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions
>  
> Technically, it should probably be even more verbose, but this might
> be adequate.

Agreed.  The problem is I don't see curly braces used anywhere in \?,
but now that I look at it it is just because there is no need for them. 
How about this:
 \\df{antw}[S+] [PATRN]  list only agg/normal/trigger/window functions

In a way though, they are really still optional, they are just not
optional for this specific line.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df