possible psql \d bug in 8.3 beta2
Is seems that \d is missing the following entry
when I set search_path to display two schemas:
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
---------+-------------+-------+----------
project | managers | table | teaminst
instrumentation=> select version();
version
--------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.3beta2, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400
(1 row)
instrumentation=> set search_path to project;
SET
instrumentation=> \d
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
---------+-------------+-------+----------
project | managers | table | teaminst
project | project_tls | table | teaminst
project | projects | table | teaminst
(3 rows)
instrumentation=> set search_path to history;
SET
instrumentation=> \d
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
---------+----------+-------+----------
history | managers | table | teaminst
(1 row)
instrumentation=> set search_path to history, project;
SET
instrumentation=> \d
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
---------+-------------+-------+----------
history | managers | table | teaminst <--where is project.managers
project | project_tls | table | teaminst
project | projects | table | teaminst
(3 rows)
instrumentation=>
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.com> writes:
Is seems that \d is missing the following entry
when I set search_path to display two schemas:
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
---------+-------------+-------+----------
project | managers | table | teaminst
It's hidden by the "managers" table in the earlier "history" schema.
\d without any particular schema specification will only show tables
that could be accessed by an unqualified table name.
regards, tom lane
--- On Sun, 12/23/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:---------+-------------+-------+----------
project | managers | table | teaminstIt's hidden by the "managers" table in the
earlier "history" schema.
\d without any particular schema specification will
only show tables
that could be accessed by an unqualified table name.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.