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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers