Hi,
Reacting somewhat late, but maybe not too late?
Le 11 avr. 09 à 17:13, Tom Lane a écrit :
> My own take on it is that actually I'd prefer one command for all of
> these. If I say "\df sum" it would be good if the output included the
> sum() aggregates; the reason being that I might be wondering if I can
> create a plain function named sum. If I have to check not only \df
> and
> \da but also \dw for conflicts, that's going to be a real PITA.
[...]
> If we were designing in a green field I think you could make a real
> strong case for a single \df command with an output column "type"
> having
> the alternatives regular, aggregate, window, and maybe trigger.
It seems this proposal got a consensus vote, and I'd like to add to
it: what about having specialized \df views, per type, with an
additional qualifier:
\dfa list aggregate functions \dfw list window functions (and aggregates?) \dft list trigger functions ... you
getthe idea
Nothing fundamentally new, just some more convenience to support for
users wanting to list functions of a given known type: it allows not
to have to \set ECHO_HIDDEN, \df, copy/paste/adapt where/launch again.
Regards,
--
dim