From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: behavior of \dt and schemas |
Date: | 2017-01-20 15:37:35 |
Message-ID: | 10797.1484926655@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017, John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, to me this is somewhat non-intuitive behavior, but maybe I'm all wet
>> here. Shouldn't \dt report all the tables it can see with the search_path
>> set to some value? And btw, this is was the behavior on 9.4.10, so if it's
>> changed in more recent versions, I haven't tested there yet.
> It shows the definition of the table you would be referencing if you used
> that name in a query. This seems like a useful behavior.
Right --- according to our normal terminology, b.mytable is *not* visible,
because it is masked by a.mytable being ahead of it in the search path.
You'd have to write a qualified name to get at b.mytable.
You can write, eg, "\dt *.mytable" or "\dt *.*" if you would like it to
show tables that are not visible according to this rule. Without a
dot in the pattern, \dt shows only visible tables, ie only the ones
you could name without putting a dot in the name.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Scalia | 2017-01-20 16:09:31 | Re: behavior of \dt and schemas |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-01-20 15:11:58 | Re: behavior of \dt and schemas |