Namespace/Table Visibility Behavior Issues

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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> ||
\\========================================================//

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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