Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Date
Msg-id 2489998D-D530-45CB-80F8-F14BB8084261@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?

David


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SnapshotResetXmin
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: GetCurrentVirtualXIDs()