At Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:47:41 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> > At Mon, 2 Aug 2021 22:28:33 -0700, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> I cannot see rewording this to avoid the use of "visible", but if this is a
>
> > Year, I think "visible" is the best word there. And I'm not sure
> > people are actually confused about the word.
>
> The term is actually defined in the psql ref page, in the second para
> of the "Patterns" section:
>
> <para>
> Whenever the <replaceable class="parameter">pattern</replaceable> parameter
> is omitted completely, the <literal>\d</literal> commands display all objects
> that are visible in the current schema search path — this is
> equivalent to using <literal>*</literal> as the pattern.
> (An object is said to be <firstterm>visible</firstterm> if its
> containing schema is in the search path and no object of the same
> kind and name appears earlier in the search path. This is equivalent to the
> statement that the object can be referenced by name without explicit
> schema qualification.)
> To see all objects in the database regardless of visibility,
> use <literal>*.*</literal> as the pattern.
> </para>
>
> Maybe this could be rearranged to make the concept more prominent,
> but I'm not convinced that we need any really new text. I definitely
> don't want to make duplicative additions to each \d command's text.
Oh, thank you for the pointer. It seems to be enough. (I didn't find
it by myself, though..)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
