| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net>, Filip Rembiałkowski <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ralph Graulich <ralph(dot)graulich(at)t-online(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: \dt doesn't show all relations in user's schemas (8.4.2) |
| Date: | 2009-12-22 01:17:49 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10912211717u43016ff2l3d8483bfdfb4b3a7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Well, yes, because only the first one is visible. The second one is
>>> masked by the first.
>
>> But the docs say that ALL objects in the schema path will be shown.
>> So, my point stands, either the docs are wrong, or the behaviour is.
>> I'd think it's the docs.
>
> It says the *visible* objects will be shown. Ones that are masked
> aren't any more visible than if they were in some other schema
> altogether: either way, if you want to reference such an object in
> a SQL statement, you'd have to schema-qualify it.
Ahh, right, it's about visibility. Hadn't caught that part.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2009-12-22 01:55:03 | Re: \dt doesn't show all relations in user's schemas (8.4.2) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-22 01:14:26 | Re: \dt doesn't show all relations in user's schemas (8.4.2) |