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

From Sadeq Dousti
Subject Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes
Date
Msg-id CADE6LviUrUZLDL+pTB=c=9T1gQ0kXPbHw3f7=O4aqewzs9E28A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes  (Sadeq Dousti <msdousti@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dear Matt,

Thanks a lot for the nice suggestion. Please find attached the version 7 of the patch, which incorporates your suggestion: It now disregards the N in \dN[ti] if pset.sversion < 100000.

Best Regards,
Sadeq

PS: Received an error from the mailer, with the following error message, so removed the mentioned email and resending the email. Sorry if you receive it twice.

This email has been blocked from posting to the lists,
and for this reason your email has not been delivered to
the list. If you wish to post to the list, please remove
dwehttam@gmail.com from the address fields of your email,
and try again.


On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:16 PM Matt Dailis <dwehttam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sadeq,

> * Support for the various \d ("describe") commands.  Note that the current
>  * expectation is that all functions in this file will succeed when working
>  * with servers of versions 9.2 and up.  It's okay to omit irrelevant
>  * information for an old server, but not to fail outright.  (But failing
>  * against a pre-9.2 server is allowed.)
>
> I'm just following the instructions here so as not to break anything unwanted, and you can see for instance \dP is doing the same.

One possible interpretation of this comment is that a command should
try to return as much relevant information as it reasonably can for an
older postgres version. The patch currently treats \dtiN as an error
for pset.sversion < 100000. What do you think about making \dtiN
behaving identically to \dti on older postgres versions? We know that
the older database definitely has no partitions, and the user is
telling us that they'd like to see everything except for the
partitions, so it seems reasonable to me to ignore the N option in
that case.

Best,
Matt Dailis
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sadeq Dousti
Date:
Subject: Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom pgstat support performance regression for simple queries