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

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Date
Msg-id 496FB97A.5040500@agliodbs.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
Tom,

> Well, maybe we do need to go with the \df \dfS \dfU approach.
> But I'm still convinced that setting things up so that it's impossible
> to search both classes of functions together is a seriously bad idea.

Agreed -- there are times I *want* to search the system functions, and 
for less-trained users they might not know the difference between UDFs 
and builtin functions, especially if they've loaded a few contrib modules.

Personally, I don't care that much about what Hungarian Notation we use, 
as long as we try to make it consistent with \dt, \dv, \dn etc.  My main 
objection to requiring \dfU to get only user functions is that it's not 
what we do with \dt.

--Josh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch