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. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers