I wrote:
> "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?
> You're ignoring the fact that tables and functions are different and
> are used differently.
BTW, it might be worth pointing out that \d has never worked like that;
for instance "\d pg_class" gives me an answer anyway. So holding up the
table behavior as a model of consistency that other \d commands should
emulate is a pretty weak argument to begin with.
regards, tom lane
