I wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Notably, I didn't like that some of the headers said "table" and some said
>>> "relation". I made them all say "table", although you could certainly
>>> argue for the opposite.
>> I originally had "table", but then it felt weird in my testing when I was
>> describing a sequence or view it said table. So I'm a weak +1 for relation.
> My preference for "table" is likewise weak. Anyone else have an
> opinion?
[ crickets... ]
After sleeping on it and taking another look at the output, I agree
that we need to use a mix of "relation" and "table", because some of
these queries definitely apply to all kinds of pg_class entries, while
for others we must be dealing with a table (or something reasonably
table-like, such as a foreign table). I made another pass over it
to fix that, and pushed the results.
Thanks for working on this! I know it's been a long process,
but sometimes that's what it takes to get to a consensus.
regards, tom lane
