Re: psql \d commands and information_schema

Martin Pihlak wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, if they're all in your search_path then plain old \df will do
> > fine. If they're not in your search path then I think it gets pretty
> > questionable whether they're "user defined" in a real sense. It seems
> > more likely that you've got a pile of modules loaded, and which of those
> > modules is "user defined" for your immediate purposes is something that
> > psql can't hope to intuit.
> >
>
> I my environment schemas are used for namespace separation, so it doesn't
> make much sense to use search_path to pull everything back into a single
> namespace. Might as well use public for everything then. And these are not
> really modules, just ordinary user objects in separate namespaces.
>
> The main benefit of the U switch is that it enables to get a quick overview
> of whats deployed to the database. At the moment this is not possible as the
> *.* listings are polluted with system objects.
>
> PS. The original \dfU suggestion was made by you in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/28027.1206976227@sss.pgh.pa.us.
> And seems, it didn't receive too much negative feedback then.

We already had a huge discussion over 'S' and I think we did as good as
we can. I think we risk overcomplicating the API by adding U, but we
can revisit this in 8.5 once we get more feedback from users.

But a larger issue is that if we try to make everyone happy with the
psql API, the API will be unusablely complex. We have just not seen
enough demand for U yet.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +