> ... and that was already proposed for "show schemas" (namespaces). > > I'm inclined to think it's time to bite the bullet and go over to > words rather than single characters to identify the \d target > (viz, "\dschema", "\dcast", etc, presumably with unique abbreviations > being allowed, as well as special cases for the historical single > characters).
Hmmm...I'm not certain that the \d commands really NEED to have a logical link to the actual thing you're listing. If you just made \dh for schemas, people would look it up and then remember it from then on. It's probably not a huge deal. We could do DESCRIBE commands as well. Also, what happened to the INFORMATION_SCHEMA proposal? Wasn't Peter E doing something with that? What happened to it? > The issue here is what do we do with the existing "\d[istvS]" behavior > (for instance, "\dsit" means "list sequences, indexes, and tables"). > Is that useful enough to try to preserve, or do we just bit-bucket it? > If we do try to preserve it, how should it work? I'd much rather it were preserved, and I'm sure most people would as well. Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
