Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-12-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: > On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Is there a TODO here? Or a few? > > Sure: you could add a TODO item like "Improve psql schema behavior", and > assign it to me. I'll send in a patch that implements the behavior I > proposed for 8.1 Added to TODO:

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-11-28 Thread Neil Conway
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Is there a TODO here? Or a few? Sure: you could add a TODO item like "Improve psql schema behavior", and assign it to me. I'll send in a patch that implements the behavior I proposed for 8.1 -Neil ---(end of bro

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-11-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Is there a TODO here? Or a few? --- Neil Conway wrote: > On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 05:32, Tom Lane wrote: > > The behaviors you mention were written at different times by different > > people, and mostly have nothing to do with

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-11-02 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 01:44, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think there needs to be a way to list all the objects in a schema. > > This doesn't seem especially helpful to me, because you'd have to fit a > bunch of different object types into a one-size-fits-all out

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-11-01 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure how we should handle "\dn schema_name." (notice the period; > assuming a schema with that name exists). The current behavior of > listing all schemas is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure what the right > behavior is. Perhaps we should reject th

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-10-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 05:32, Tom Lane wrote: > The behaviors you mention were written at different times by different > people, and mostly have nothing to do with schemas per se. I agree that > some more consistency would probably be good. Do you have a specific > proposal? Sure, I just thought

Re: [HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-10-30 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > psql's slash commands for schemas seem a little weird to me. The behaviors you mention were written at different times by different people, and mostly have nothing to do with schemas per se. I agree that some more consistency would probably be good. Do y

[HACKERS] psql and schemas

2004-10-28 Thread Neil Conway
psql's slash commands for schemas seem a little weird to me. For example: neilc=# \d nonexistent Did not find any relation named "nonexistent". neilc=# \dt nonexistent No matching relations found. neilc=# \dn nonexistent List of schemas Name | Owner --+--- (0 rows) -- Is there a good re