On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing "all tables".
The following looks right - given a publication it would nice to know if its for all tables or not.
\dRp
! List of publications
! Name | Owner | All Tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes
! testpib_ins_trunct | regress_publication_user | f | t | f | f
! testpub_default | regress_publication_user | f | t | t | t
This [I couldn't find a regression diff entry where "All Tables" is true :( ...]
\dRp+ testpub3
! Publication testpub3
! All Tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes
! ------------+---------+---------+---------
! f | t | t | t
Tables:
"public.testpub_tbl3"
"public.testpub_tbl3a"
I agree with Tom and Masahiko Sawada, if "All Tables" is false we continue to show "Tables:\n\t[tables]" but when "All Tables" is true we'd write something like "Tables: All Tables in Database". The user can query the database if they wish to know the names of all those tables exactly.
I suppose we could go further here, say by simplifying "public.tbl1, public.tbl2", when public only contains two tables, to "public.*". Or consider never listing more than some small number of rows and provide a "show all" option (\dRp++ or just a function/view) that would list every single table. But I would go with the default "+" behavior being to show table names when the listing of tables is fixed and to say "All Tables in Database" when it is dynamic. In "+" mode that makes the "All Tables" boolean redundant though I'd keep it around for consistency.
