Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Schema 'public'

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw(at)view(dot)net(dot)au>
Cc: Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Novice Postgresql-list <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Schema 'public'
Date: 2006-04-19 05:42:22
Message-ID: 22398.1145425342@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw(at)view(dot)net(dot)au> writes:
> protoaddress=> \d
>                  List of relations
>   Schema |         Name         |   Type   | Owner
> --------+----------------------+----------+-------
>   public | address              | table    | qdu
>   public | address_key_seq      | sequence | qdu
>   public | country              | table    | qdu
>   public | country_k_seq        | sequence | qdu
>   ...

> etc. etc.

> I don't want to know.

That seems to me about as valid as complaining that you shouldn't have
to look at the owner column because you have only one user in your
database.  Or that the type column is useless because you don't have
anything but plain tables in your database.  The \d output is designed
to be useful in typical cases, not custom-tailored for particular
restricted cases.  As Richard suggested, you could make your own view
that shows just what you want ... or hack up psql's describe.c if you're
really determined ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Shoaib MirDate: 2006-04-19 08:17:04
Subject: Re: Defining the same relation in another database
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-19 05:31:09
Subject: Re: Schema 'public'

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group