Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes
Date
Msg-id 1195740.1740343629@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes  (Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com> writes:
> Please find attached the patch to add a new metacommand (\dh) to psql.

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about whether this
is useful functionality or not.  But if we do want it, I'd like to
bikeshed on the name a bit.  "High-level" is not terminology we use
anywhere else, and it's ambiguous too (just how high in a partition
tree does a table need to be to be listed?).  We do use the terms
"root partition" or "partition root".  So I'd prefer something
based on those terms.  Possibilities:

1. Use "\dr" or maybe better "\dR" (letting \dr remain available for
some future command about roles).  The trouble with either of these
is that the name is already partially overloaded, since we already
have \drds, \drg, \dRp, \dRs.

2. Extend the existing \dP (display partitions) command with some
flag that restricts the listing to root partitions, probably
"r" for "root".

  \dP[itnx+] [PATTERN]   list [only index/table] partitioned relations [n=nested
]

I kind of like #2 better, but am not set on it.

While we're at it maybe we could bring some sanity to the "n"
flag, which seems to have several bizarre properties like
working differently depending on whether you give a pattern.
It looks from this documentation like it's the inverse of what
"r" would do, but testing says it's not.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sadeq Dousti
Date:
Subject: Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes
Next
From: Sadeq Dousti
Date:
Subject: Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes