Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
