"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Hmm. Personally, most of my uses of \df are for the purpose of looking
> for built-in functions, and so this'd be a step backwards for my usage.
> Likewise for operators. Maybe I'm in the minority or maybe not.
> The only one of these things for which the argument seems entirely
> compelling is comments. I do understand the appeal of consistency but
> sometimes it's not such a great thing.
The problem is that there's absolutely no way to do the equivalent of a plain
\dt and get a list of just your user functions. That's a real headache and it
gets worse as we add more and more system functions too.
It might be cute to see if the pattern matches any user functions and if not
try again with system functions. So you would still get results if you did
"\df rtrim" for example.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
