RE: add \dpS to psq [16beta1]

Hi,
Thank you for developing a good feature.
I found while testing PostgreSQL 16 Beta 1 that the output of the \? metacommand did not include \dS, \dpS.
The attached patch changes the output of the \? meta command to:

Current output
psql=# \?
\z [PATTERN] same as \dp
\dp [PATTERN] list table, view, and sequence access privileges

Patched output
psql=# \?
\dp[S] [PATTERN] list table, view, and sequence access privileges
\z[S] [PATTERN] same as \dp

Regards,
Noriyoshi Shinoda

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:46 AM
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>; Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>; Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>; Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>; Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>; Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>; Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: add \dpS to psql

On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 11:18:59AM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It might be true that temp tables aren't usually interesting from a
> permissions point of view, but it's not hard to imagine situations
> where interesting things do happen. It's also probably the case that
> most users won't have many temp tables, so I don't think including
> them by default will be particularly intrusive.
>
> Also, from a user perspective, I think it would be something of a POLA
> violation for \dp[S] and \dt[S] to include different sets of tables,
> though I appreciate that we do that now. There's nothing in the docs
> to indicate that that's the case.

Agreed.

> Anyway, I've pushed the v2 patch as-is. If anyone feels strongly
> enough that we should change its behaviour for temp tables, then we
> can still discuss that.

Thanks!

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com