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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Date
Msg-id 9117.1232043799@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not sure whether you're endorsing that approach or panning it, but
> -1 from me.  We have always had \d or \dt for user tables and \dS or
> \dtS for system tables.  No one is complaining about this AFAICS, so
> we should \df be any different?  The only argument I can see is that
> "it's always been different", but IMHO, making it still be
> inconsistent yet in a sneakier and less intuitive way doesn't seem
> like a step forward.

You're ignoring the fact that tables and functions are different and
are used differently.  In particular, most of the system catalogs are
not really meant to be used directly by users, which is surely not
true for functions and operators.

However, having said that, I'm not averse to unifying the behavior
as long as it's done in a sensible fashion.  Imposing the old behavior
of \dt on everything else is simply not that sensible fashion.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch