Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYuqri4_hbAahLVhQ0HSm=N7Kw7Q99J32wq0gk_=7KZ5g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Update description of \d[S+] in \?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List 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.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()