Martin Pihlak wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, if they're all in your search_path then plain old \df will do > > fine. If they're not in your search path then I think it gets pretty > > questionable whether they're "user defined" in a real sense. It seems > > more likely that you've got a pile of modules loaded, and which of those > > modules is "user defined" for your immediate purposes is something that > > psql can't hope to intuit. > > > > I my environment schemas are used for namespace separation, so it doesn't > make much sense to use search_path to pull everything back into a single > namespace. Might as well use public for everything then. And these are not > really modules, just ordinary user objects in separate namespaces. > > The main benefit of the U switch is that it enables to get a quick overview > of whats deployed to the database. At the moment this is not possible as the > *.* listings are polluted with system objects. > > PS. The original \dfU suggestion was made by you in > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/28027.1206976...@sss.pgh.pa.us. > And seems, it didn't receive too much negative feedback then.
We already had a huge discussion over 'S' and I think we did as good as we can. I think we risk overcomplicating the API by adding U, but we can revisit this in 8.5 once we get more feedback from users. But a larger issue is that if we try to make everyone happy with the psql API, the API will be unusablely complex. We have just not seen enough demand for U yet. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
