From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
Date: | 2021-10-11 22:37:17 |
Message-ID: | 525261.1633991837@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On Oct 11, 2021, at 3:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Doesn't work with the correct DB name, either:
>> regression=# \d regression.public.bit_defaults
>> Did not find any relation named "regression.public.bit_defaults".
> REL_13_STABLE appears to accept any amount of nonsense you like:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the old rule was to just ignore whatever
appeared in the database-name position. While we could tighten that
up to insist that it match the current DB's name, I'm not sure that
I see the point. There's no near-term prospect of doing anything
useful with some other DB's name there, so being more restrictive
seems like it'll probably break peoples' scripts to little purpose.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-11 23:35:17 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-11 22:32:16 | Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname |