Обсуждение: Schema 'public'

Is there any way to prevent the thing telling you that it/whatever is
in the public schema?  I find this intrusive.  If I were running a
seat/flight bookings/reservations system for Japan Airlines perhaps I
wouldn't.  But I ain't and I do.  I am never going to explicitly use a
schema.  Multiple databases is sufficient for much bigger companies
than mine.

And I think the term "schema" is bizarre in this context.

Just curious,  What "thing" is tell you that "it" is in the public schema?

--- Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@view.net.au> wrote:

> Is there any way to prevent the thing telling you that it/whatever is
> in the public schema?  I find this intrusive.  If I were running a
> seat/flight bookings/reservations system for Japan Airlines perhaps I
> wouldn't.  But I ain't and I do.  I am never going to explicitly use a
> schema.  Multiple databases is sufficient for much bigger companies
> than mine.
>
> And I think the term "schema" is bizarre in this context.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:

> Just curious,  What "thing" is tell you that "it" is in the public schema?

For example...

protoaddress=> \d
                 List of relations
  Schema |         Name         |   Type   | Owner
--------+----------------------+----------+-------
  public | address              | table    | qdu
  public | address_key_seq      | sequence | qdu
  public | country              | table    | qdu
  public | country_k_seq        | sequence | qdu
  ...

etc. etc.

I don't want to know.

In you wanted, you could create a custom view that queried the pg_catalog schema to give to the
same results without the schema column.

--- Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@view.net.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
>
> > Just curious,  What "thing" is tell you that "it" is in the public schema?
>
> For example...
>
> protoaddress=> \d
>                  List of relations
>   Schema |         Name         |   Type   | Owner
> --------+----------------------+----------+-------
>   public | address              | table    | qdu
>   public | address_key_seq      | sequence | qdu
>   public | country              | table    | qdu
>   public | country_k_seq        | sequence | qdu
>   ...
>
> etc. etc.
>
> I don't want to know.
>

Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@view.net.au> writes:
> And I think the term "schema" is bizarre in this context.

Feel free to voice your displeasure to the SQL standards committee ;-)
... it's their terminology.

            regards, tom lane

Michael Talbot-Wilson <mtw@view.net.au> writes:
> protoaddress=> \d
>                  List of relations
>   Schema |         Name         |   Type   | Owner
> --------+----------------------+----------+-------
>   public | address              | table    | qdu
>   public | address_key_seq      | sequence | qdu
>   public | country              | table    | qdu
>   public | country_k_seq        | sequence | qdu
>   ...

> etc. etc.

> I don't want to know.

That seems to me about as valid as complaining that you shouldn't have
to look at the owner column because you have only one user in your
database.  Or that the type column is useless because you don't have
anything but plain tables in your database.  The \d output is designed
to be useful in typical cases, not custom-tailored for particular
restricted cases.  As Richard suggested, you could make your own view
that shows just what you want ... or hack up psql's describe.c if you're
really determined ...

            regards, tom lane