On 15/06/17 11:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
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.
Have you tried it with a few tens of thousands of tables? Even if your
pager makes it work comfortably, others might find it less satisfactory.
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
example)
I'm not really buying that. If they don't know what "all tables" means,
a voluminous list isn't likely to help much.
I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like
we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing
"all tables".
I'd certainly prefer to see 'all tables' - in addition to being more
compact, it also reflects more correctly how the publication was defined.
regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
