From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Namespace/Table Visibility Behavior Issues |
Date: | 2003-01-19 06:55:47 |
Message-ID: | 24900.1042959347@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"D. Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> writes:
> I am not sure that is wise to do the pg_table_is_visible check on those
> commands. In my humble opinion, those commands are for understanding the
> layout/structure/nature of the database. If you can't see all your
> namespaces that you set in your search_path then it could distort ones
> understanding of the database.
What would you have it do --- list tables that you cannot actually
access without qualification? That doesn't seem like an improvement to
me.
You could write "\d *.*" to see everything, or "\d test_1.*" and
"\d test_2.*" to see the full contents of those two schemas. But
ISTM that \d without any schema qualification should only show tables
that you can access without any schema qualification.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mlw | 2003-01-19 13:23:06 | Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4? |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2003-01-19 06:23:47 | Re: Heading to Atlanta |