Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In the second place, this really fails to respond to what I'd call
>> the main usability problem with \dRp+, which is that the all-tables
>> property is likely to lead to an unreadably bulky list of affected tables.
>> What I'd say the patch ought to do is *replace* \dRp+'s list of affected
>> tables with a notation like "(all tables)" when puballtables is true.
> I'd considered that, but I find the pager does a fine job of dealing with
> the bulkiness of the list.
Have you tried it with a few tens of thousands of tables? Even if your
pager makes it work comfortably, others might find it less satisfactory.
> I thought it might be a good idea to not only
> point out that it is all tables, but also remind people of exactly what
> tables those are currently (in case it had slipped their mind that all
> tables will include table from other schemas not in their search_path, for
> example)
I'm not really buying that. If they don't know what "all tables" means,
a voluminous list isn't likely to help much.
I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like
we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing
"all tables".
regards, tom lane