On fre, 2010-09-24 at 14:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How do we want to define system exactly? My original proposal was
for bare \dn to hide the temp and toast schemas. If we consider that
what it's hiding is system schemas then there's some merit to the
idea that it should hide pg_catalog and
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On sön, 2010-09-19 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm. If we had a \dnS option, what I would sorta expect it to do is
show the system schemas pg_catalog and information_schema. The
toast
and temp schemas seem like a different category somehow. On
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
In that case, in a fresh database you would *only* see public.
I'm not sure that I like this though. Comments?
I sure like it! I can't count how many time I would have wanted a
cleaned out \dn output.
Regards,
--
dim
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On sön, 2010-09-19 at 13:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm. If we had a \dnS option, what I would sorta expect it to do is
show the system schemas pg_catalog and information_schema. The
toast
and temp schemas seem like a different category somehow. On the other
hand, if we did it like this,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is at least inconsistent and at worst wildly misleading. ISTM
we ought to adopt some combination of the
psql's \dn command hides pg_temp_nn schemas, except for the current
backend's own temp schema (if any). However, when we added separate
pg_toast_temp_nn schemas for TOAST tables, \dn wasn't taught about that,
leading to such odd-looking output as this:
regression=# \dn
List of schemas
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is at least inconsistent and at worst wildly misleading. ISTM
we ought to adopt some combination of the following ideas:
I vote for this combination:
3. Don't show either pg_temp_nn or pg_toast_temp_nn schemas, not even
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is at least inconsistent and at worst wildly misleading. ISTM
we ought to adopt some combination of the following ideas:
I vote for this
