On 15/06/17 11:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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".
>
>
I'd certainly prefer to see 'all tables' - in addition to being more
compact, it also reflects more correctly how the publication was defined.
regards
Mark