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.
regards, tom lane
