On 11/1/07, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
> tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> >> Perhaps both these considerations dictate providing another command or a
> >> special flavor of \l instead of just modifying it?
> >
> > I've seen no argument made why \l should print this info at all.
>
> Its interesting information, but I agree that there are BIG
> disadvantages to adding it to \l directly. If there's an "\lv" or
> such, where it's more certain that people want extended information,
> and perhaps that they have appropriate permissions.
I'd find this convenient too. Although \l+ would be more consistent
with the \d series of commands.
Cheers
BJ
