Robert Treat wrote:
Ugh. If I want to see the syntax of my functions, I'd be forced to use the
\df-+ syntax, and I'd argue people spend far more time wanting to see \df+
output on their own functions than they ever do on system functions.
+1. I suspect Tom's use is pretty atypical. If I wan
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > I think adding 'S' to \df confuses more than it helps.
>
> Why that? Imho it would be consistent.
I thought it was strange to have alphabetic modifiers but I seem to be
the only one who is worried about it so forget my objection.
--
Bruce Momjian
Robert Treat wrote:
Ugh. If I want to see the syntax of my functions, I'd be forced to use the
\df-+ syntax, and I'd argue people spend far more time wanting to see \df+
output on their own functions than they ever do on system functions.
imho the argument against \dfS is pretty weak. Letters
> I think adding 'S' to \df confuses more than it helps.
Why that? Imho it would be consistent.
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not mat
On Thursday 09 September 2004 21:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> While you are it, why not make it
> Informational
> (S = show system objects)
> (+ = show more detail about each object)
> \l[+]list all databases
> \d[S]list tables, views, and sequences
> \d[S][+] NAME
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To clarify the 'S' a bit more, here is the output from \? in my new patch:
This looks nice perhaps do it for "+" as well?
> Informational:
> Modifiers
> S Show system objects
> + Additional detail
> \l[+] list all
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:37:13AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> To clarify the 'S' a bit more, here is the output from \? in my new patch:
>
> Informational (S = show system objects)
> \llist all databases (add "+" for more detail)
> \d[S] list tables, view
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I thought the "S" suggestion was much better than this.
My problem is that it uses a letter as a modifier, while all other
letters are object specifications. '+' is a modifier. We need another
modifier th
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought the "S" suggestion was much better than this.
> My problem is that it uses a letter as a modifier, while all other
> letters are object specifications. '+' is a modifier. We need another
> modifier that isn't a letter. No
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I talked to Greg via chat and it looks like '&' is the best choice for
> > adding system object display:
>
> > \d& shows system stuff
>
> Yech, that's awful. It looks ugly and it commandeers a punctuation
> symbol that we might
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I talked to Greg via chat and it looks like '&' is the best choice for
> adding system object display:
> \d& shows system stuff
Yech, that's awful. It looks ugly and it commandeers a punctuation
symbol that we might wish to use for something else
I talked to Greg via chat and it looks like '&' is the best choice for
adding system object display:
\d& shows system stuff
\df& shows system functions
etc.
Greg is going to work on a patch for 8.1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Agreed it would be nice to more clearly distingush user functions from
> system ones, but how? I can't see how 'S' is going to help us because
> \dS already shows system tables. Would it be \dfS? What is the logic
> to that? Having 'S' be a f
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > Well there's always \dtS and \dvS I don't see why typing \dfS is any harder.
> >
> > It would be nice for thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Stark wrote:
> Well there's always \dtS and \dvS I don't see why typing \dfS is any harder.
>
> It would be nice for this to be more visible in the documentation and the \?
> output though. I've only just found it after months of pulling hair
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH I know that I sometimes use /df to look up built in functions that I
> don't exactly remember, so keeping a way to access the system functions is
> handy.
>
> Given a third hand I'd look for some way to do both... perhaps \df can show
> all func
On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:29, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> > On the ordering issues, I'd go for straight alphabetical schema/name
> > sort in all cases; I thought that's where we were already, but if you
> > see some missing cases let's fix it. I'm not enamored of discriminating
> > against sy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I find this quite ugly, and don't think it's a good change. Anyone
> who's fool enough to use trailing spaces in column names deserves the
> pain it will cost them --- and there is no other case in which the
> unquoted display is ambiguous.
I
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This should be:
> Table "public.Upper Division"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --+-+---
> abc | integer |
> " spaced out " | text|
> " real ""Name""" | text|
> "MixedCase"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>> 1. Do we want to use quote_ident on object names? Ideally, column
>> names with a space in them, for example, should be surrounded by
>> double quotes.
> Example of it failing? You mean li
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I was looking through the code of psql and had a few questions:
>
> 1. Do we want to use quote_ident on object names? Ideally, co
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> 3. I'd like to rearrange the ORDER BY on some objects to show
> user-created objects before system ones. Currently, if I create
> a new function and do a \df, I have to wade through all the
> system functions in the pg_catalog schema before seeing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was looking through the code of psql and had a few questions:
1. Do we want to use quote_ident on object names? Ideally, column
names with a space in them, for example, should be surrounded by
double quotes.
2. There is a disconnect between w
26 matches
Mail list logo
