Jeff Janes <> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <> wrote:
>>> That seems unfortunate.  Should the "for all tables" be included as
>>> another column in \dRp and \dRp+, or at least as a footnote tag in \dRp+ ?

>> +1. I was thinking the same. Attached patch adds "All Tables" column
>> to both \dRp and \dRp+.

> Looks good to me.  Attached with regression test expected output  changes.

This patch confuses me.  In the first place, I don't see the argument for
adding the "all tables" property to \dRp output; it seems out of place
there.  In the second place, this really fails to respond to what I'd call
the main usability problem with \dRp+, which is that the all-tables
property is likely to lead to an unreadably bulky list of affected tables.
What I'd say the patch ought to do is *replace* \dRp+'s list of affected
tables with a notation like "(all tables)" when puballtables is true.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to