Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I know we don't like the current behavior, but I think we need to make
them consistent first for easy testing and so when we change it, it will
remain consistent.
I will work on a consensus patch soon for the new behavior.
The \dXU *.* commands
Martin Pihlak martin.pih...@gmail.com writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I know we don't like the current behavior, but I think we need to make
them consistent first for easy testing and so when we change it, it will
remain consistent.
I will work on a consensus patch soon
Robert Haas wrote:
Here is what I hope is a consensus patch. It adds 'A' to show all
objects, including system ones. It turns out that this is how 'S' works
now in CVS, but 'S' is unclear because it suggests just system objects;
'A' for show 'all' objects seems clearer.
I think it's
Bruce Momjian escribió:
In thinking last night, I am now wondering if a letter is really the
right symbol for this. We already have letter flags which control
object type selection, but the system table addition is kind of
independent of those flags, like '+' now. I am thinking maybe '' is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In thinking last night, I am now wondering if a letter is really the
right symbol for this. We already have letter flags which control
object type selection, but the system table addition is kind of
independent of those flags, like '+'
Le mardi 20 janvier 2009, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
Robert Haas wrote:
Here is what I hope is a consensus patch. It adds 'A' to show all
objects, including system ones. It turns out that this is how 'S'
works now in CVS, but 'S' is unclear because it suggests just system
objects; 'A'
Bruce,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
In thinking last night, I am now wondering if a letter is really the
right symbol for this. We already have letter flags which control
object type selection, but the system table addition is kind of
independent of those flags, like '+' now. I
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
In thinking last night, I am now wondering if a letter is really the
right symbol for this. We already have letter flags which control
object type selection, but the system table addition is kind of
independent of those flags, like '+' now.
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In thinking last night, I am now wondering if a letter is really the
right symbol for this. We already have letter flags which control
object type selection, but the
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Le mardi 20 janvier 2009, Bruce Momjian a ?crit?:
Robert Haas wrote:
Here is what I hope is a consensus patch. It adds 'A' to show all
objects, including system ones. It turns out that this is how 'S'
works now in CVS, but
Gregory Stark wrote:
The behaviour of \dt in the face of tables which shadow system tables is
actually even stranger:
postgres=# create table pg_proc (t text);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# commit;
COMMIT
postgres=# \dt pg_proc
No matching relations found.
And I
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I know we don't like the current behavior, but I think we need to make
them consistent first for easy testing and so when we change it, it will
remain consistent.
I will work on a consensus patch soon for the new behavior.
Here is what I hope is a consensus patch. It
Here is what I hope is a consensus patch. It adds 'A' to show all
objects, including system ones. It turns out that this is how 'S' works
now in CVS, but 'S' is unclear because it suggests just system objects;
'A' for show 'all' objects seems clearer.
I think it's probably fine for S to
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Well, as I said before, I'm not averse to having the default behavior
*with no pattern* to be that we omit system objects --- and I think we
could make that apply across the board. What I'm saying is that when
you give a pattern it should not matter
Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So it seems to me that we made \df consistent with \dt when in fact what we
really wanted is for it to be consistent with \d. I hadn't actually realized
that the behaviour for \d was so different from \dt myself.
Yeah, given that the battle cry for
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
include system catalogs. We could add the additional rule that
the above statements apply only when a pattern is specified, and
without a pattern you get just user stuff (so omitting
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:14 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
include system catalogs. We could add the additional rule that
the above statements apply only when a pattern is
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
So would \df then be equivalent to \dU? Or am I misunderstanding
something?
You mean \dfU? Yes, if there's no pattern.
regards, tom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
include system catalogs.
Are you kidding me? No way. That's a recipe for making all our users
unhappy with us.
* \dfU will restrict the printout to non-system functions
On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
So would \df then be equivalent to \dU? Or am I misunderstanding
something?
You mean \dfU? Yes, if there's no pattern.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks. +1.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:14 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
include system catalogs. We could add the additional rule that
the above
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 12:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
Again, \dfS would be a bit useless, unless we say that the implicit
U modifier for no pattern doesn't override an explicit S modifier.
Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
So
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
No: the user case someone had upthread, where they want to see all their
functions starting with an a across all schemas in their path:
\df a*
I think either \dfU a* or \dfU *.a* is a sufficiently close
One issue here is that plain \d gets less useful because it'll now
include system catalogs. We could add the additional rule that
the above statements apply only when a pattern is specified, and
without a pattern you get just user stuff (so omitting a pattern
corresponds to pattern * with
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Changing the scope of the search on the basis of whether or not a
pattern is present strikes me as a terrible idea. It's confusing and
unlikely to make anyone happy.
Huh? The pattern itself changes the scope of the search, so I don't
see how this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I think either \dfU a* or \dfU *.a* is a sufficiently close
approximation to that. The behavior you are asking for is essentially
I want to pay attention to the search path, except not actually follow
its rules, which is bogus. Either you
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Changing the scope of the search on the basis of whether or not a
pattern is present strikes me as a terrible idea. It's confusing and
unlikely to make anyone happy.
Huh? The
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
different list of stuff than what the same command would display
without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's a bad idea
regardless of which particular backslash-sequence we're
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
different list of stuff than what the same command would display
without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's a bad idea
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
different list of stuff than what the same command would display
without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's a bad idea
regardless of which particular
On Jan 16, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
\df -- all
\dfS-- system only
\dfU-- non-system only
but are we willing to change \d and \dt to work that way too?
Or should we leave them inconsistent?
I would prefer them
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Comments? Does this cover all the cases?
I tend to think that changing which schemas are searched based on the
presence or absence of a search pattern is a bad idea.
Is the bare form (no U or S) going to search all schemas or the ones
on the search path?
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
but are we willing to change \d and \dt to work that way too?
Or should we leave them inconsistent?
I would prefer them consistent.
I think that people will hate the changed behavior to \d
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
I think either \dfU a* or \dfU *.a* is a sufficiently close
approximation to that. The behavior you are asking for is essentially
I want to pay attention to the search path, except not actually follow
its rules, which is bogus. Either you want to
Tom,
which means that Robert's complaint about treating no-pattern
differently from pattern falls to the ground. It's exactly what
\d has done for years, and nobody has complained about that.
Just because they haven't voiced loud complaints doesn't mean that they
haven't been *confused* by
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I feel pretty strongly that making the pattern search against a
different list of stuff than what the same command would display
without the pattern is confusing and a bad idea. It's
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Tom,
which means that Robert's complaint about treating no-pattern
differently from pattern falls to the ground. It's exactly what
\d has done for years, and nobody has complained about that.
Just because they haven't voiced loud complaints doesn't mean
Actually, now that I look at the code, the historical behavior of
\d is even weirder than I thought:
\d or \d+ *with no pattern* is equivalent to \dtvs(+)
(and hence shows all user tables and no system tables)
\d or \d+ *with a pattern* takes a completely
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think you should make:
\df - non-system only
\dfS - system only
\dfA - all
Then you could make \dt the same way, and it wouldn't involve breaking
the way \dt works now.
No, instead it would break \df. As I said before, a solution that was
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Is the bare form (no U or S) going to search all schemas or the ones
on the search path? Whatever the answer, do we need a way to get the
other?
The former, if you specify *.* (or *.anything) as your pattern.
The latter, if you don't specify
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I can't shake the feeling that this is about a couple
of PostgreSQL hackers (yourself included) not wanting to type \dfS or
\dfA or something to get the behavior they currently get with \df. If
that's the case, come off it, because there's lots of
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I can't shake the feeling that this is about a couple
of PostgreSQL hackers (yourself included) not wanting to type \dfS or
\dfA or something to get the behavior they currently get
42 matches
Mail list logo
