Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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 the other
>> hand, if we did it like this, then the S and + modifiers would be
>> orthogonal which is a nice property.
> Well, normally the + option shows more columns and the S option shows
> more rows. Showing more "internal" objects with + might be a bit
> confusing.
Okay, it seems to be the consensus that \dn should have orthogonal
S and + options (S = show system stuff, + = show more columns).
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 information_schema too.
In that case, in a fresh database you would *only* see "public".
I'm not sure that I like this though. Comments?
regards, tom lane