On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I recently submitted a patch that makes all the database objects behave in the same way as far as the backslash psql commands. Currently, tables work like this: \dt lists all non-system tables in your path, while \dtS shows only the system tables. The idea is to expand that functionality to other database objects, e.g. functions. Currently, \df will show you a list of *all* functions, including the system ones. Since there are currently over 1500 system functions, this limits its usefullness. The patch standardizes everything on the way we do tables and indexes - the user ones are shown by default, and you add a capital "S" if you really want to see the system ones. So the patch would have \df show all your functions, \dD show all your domains, \doS shows the system operators, etc. This all seems to make sense to me, and I thought the debate was over :), but there has been some feedback on the patches list and we now seem to be at an impasse, so I thought I would invite a larger audience (other than the handful of us that read patches) to comment on this. I maintain that it makes more sense for those few people who regularly look at system functions to add a "S" than to have everyone else have to do things such as "\df public." Of course, there is currently no way to see all the non-system functions if they are not all contained in one schema. Some have advocated some sort of configuration variable to control the behavior, but this seems like extreme overkill to me and will lead to more confusion, as people forget which "mode" they are in. Far simpler to simply add a capital "S" for those rare occasions when you need to. Someone else raised the argument that we should keep them separated because tables are more important for a working database than functions. I don't buy this one either: for those of us that use functions, domains, operators, etc., they are very, very important indeed. All objects should be treated equally. It also makes things much easier for users to have everything be consistent, rather than wondering why "S" is needed in some cases and not others.
I agree with you. I expect to see user-created functions with \df by default, and rarely look at the system functions. The S addition makes perfect sense for tables and views, and even though I know about the current inconsistent behavior, I still forget sometimes and expect \df to act similarly.
Jon -- Jon Jensen End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ Software development with Interchange, Perl, PostgreSQL, Apache, Linux, ... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
