| From: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Namespace/Table Visibility Behavior Issues |
| Date: | 2003-01-22 20:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.50.0301221415210.5290-100000@moko.dracken.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I didn't see this make it to the list. I thought I would try again.
--
//========================================================\\
|| D. Hageman <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> ||
\\========================================================//
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 16:51:12 -0600 (CST)
From: D. Hageman <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Namespace/Table Visibility Behavior Issues
Assume a database with a couple of namespaces. Give two of these
namespaces the names test_1 and test_2. Under these namespaces create a
couple of tables with the names: example, example_2, example_3.
set search_path to test_1, test_2;
In the psql client, using a standard \d you will only see the namespace
test_1 listed and the tables underneath that. test_2 will not be visible
due to the fact they fail the pg_table_is_visible() check.
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.
--
//========================================================\\
|| D. Hageman <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> ||
\\========================================================//
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-22 20:30:10 | Re: Foreign key wierdness |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-01-22 19:37:19 | Object Locks |