Update description of \d[S+] in \?

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.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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.

Thanks,
Amit

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

Of course, having it be inaccurate is not great either.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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.
​

On 2017/08/01 11:44, David G. Johnston wrote:

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.

Hmm, that makes it short.

\d[S+] list relations and sequences
\d[S+] NAME describe relation, index, or sequence

But, quite a few error messages generated by the backend will still list
them with the current names that are based on relkind. For example, here
is one:

alter table foo_a_seq rename last_value to what;

ERROR: "foo_a_seq" is not a table, view, materialized view, composite
type, index, or foreign table

Any terminology change we introduce will have to preserve consistency
across the board.

Thanks,
Amit

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers