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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-novice by date

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