On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

I thought since "all tables" is also a primitive and frequently
accessed information we can add it to \dRp output. But I'm not sure
it's appropriate coping. Is there a criterion for what information we
should add to the "backslash" command or the "backslash+" command?

> 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.

+1 for replacing it with "(al tables)" when puballtables is true.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to