| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Include access method in listTables output |
| Date: | 2020-06-20 13:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm0-VaXY_w38E1FAFa-xmKOqOOikhge-Vwpe1+uYwCVhSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:13 PM Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Few comments:
> >
> > - if (pset.sversion >= 120000)
> >
> > - appendPQExpBufferStr(&buf,
> >
> > - "\n LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_am am ON am.oid = c.relam");
> >
> > Should we include pset.hide_tableam check along with the version check?
>
> I opted against it, since it seems more intuitive to have a single
> switch and placed on the display part. A similar pattern can be found
> in describeOneTableDetails(). I do not hold a strong opinion and will
> gladly ament if insisted upon.
>
I felt we could add that check as we might be including
pg_catalog.pg_am in cases even though we really don't need it.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2020-06-20 14:07:49 | Possible NULL pointer deferenced (src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c (line 563) |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2020-06-20 12:32:34 | git.postgresql.org ok? |