On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, 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.

Why?  It is an important property of the publication which is single-valued
and easy to represent concisely.  What makes it out of place?

> 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.

I'd considered that, but I find the pager does a fine job of dealing with
the bulkiness of the list. I thought it might be a good idea to not only
point out that it is all tables, but also remind people of exactly what
tables those are currently (in case it had slipped their mind that all
tables will include table from other schemas not in their search_path, for



Reply via email to