Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?
| 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 \?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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: