| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Oddity with psql \d and pg_table_is_visible |
| Date: | 2007-09-05 19:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | 21451.1189020470@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> While this is correct on a per-relation level, I'm thinking that it's
> not what we'd really like to have happen in psql. What I'd like \d to do
> is show me everything in any schema that's in my search_path, even if
> there's something higher in the search_path that would over-ride it.
> ISTM that's what most people would expect out of \d.
I don't agree with that reasoning in the least, particularly not if you
intend to "fix" it by redefining pg_table_is_visible() ...
What will happen if we change \d to work that way is that it will show
you a table, and you'll try to access it, and you'll get the wrong table
because the access will go to the one that really is visible.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-05 20:06:07 | Re: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-05 19:16:47 | Re: Should pointers to PGPROC be volatile-qualified? |