Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sadeq Dousti <msdousti(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes
Date: 2025-02-23 23:30:36
Message-ID: CAKAnmmJToEu6MYeddUhmT4-6yJ0xKM_YhKMqjD=WmK+hHi-6Tw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 4:34 PM Sadeq Dousti <msdousti(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Totally agree about the naming. There's no other terminology known to me,
> but I'll definitely think about it. Of course, I'm very open to
> suggestions from you or anyone else in the community.
>

The problem is that we are really tight on available letters for a bare \d.
I immediately thought of "adult" tables (those that are not children). But
both \da and \dA are used! The only other mnemonic option is "\de" where e
stands for elder tables (get it? elder because they are not children).

Would it be useful to you to have them as separate items? In other words,
not indexes and tables together, but some flag on both \dt and \di to limit
to non-child relations. I think as far as "core structure" the list of
tables is far more important than what indexes happen to be on them. Plus,
\d also shows sequences, which is even less useful information than
indexes, IMHO.

So maybe \dta and \dia? (adults only)

Cheers,
Greg

--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2025-02-23 23:45:32 Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2025-02-23 22:12:36 Re: Removing unneeded self joins