Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwYuqri4_hbAahLVhQ0HSm=N7Kw7Q99J32wq0gk_=7KZ5g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/07/13 19:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> The description of \d[S+] currently does not mention that it will list
>>> materialized views and foreign tables.  Attached fixes that.
>>>
>>
>> I guess the same change is applicable to the description of \d[S+] NAME as well.
>
> Thanks for the review.  Fixed in the attached.

The problem with this, IMV, is that it makes those lines more than 80
characters, whereas right now they are not.

​84: ​  \\d[S+]                 list (foreign) tables, (materialized) views, and sequences\n
76:   \\d[S+]                 list (foreign) tables, (mat.) views, and sequences\n

  And that line seems
doomed to get even longer in the future.

​Cross that bridge when we come to it?

Lumping the tables and views into a single label (I'd go with "relations" since these are all - albeit non-exclusively - things that can appear in a FROM clause) would greatly aid things here.  Indexes and sequences would retain their own identities.  But I seem to recall that elsewhere we call indexes relations - and I'm not sure about sequences.

I'm partial to calling it "relations and sequences" and letting the reader check the documentation for what "relations" means in this context.

David J.
​

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()