Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this falls in the category of "be careful what you wish for,
>> you might get it". It is now blindingly obvious that the folks asking
>> for that had not actually lived with the behavior for any period of
>> time.
> I got several emails thanking me for applying the patch, so there is
> clearly user-demand for 'S'.
Were any of them from people who had actually *used* the patch for more
than five minutes? I think this is clearly a case of allowing abstract
consistency considerations to override usability.
The real problem here is that the 'S' suffix for \dt is a bad precedent
for everything else. If you want consistency then we need to change
that end of things. I think that the idea of a switch to omit system
objects, rather than include them, might work.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
