On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:40 AM Mark Dilger <mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > 3a is a bit strange, when considered in the context of patterns. If db1, > db2, and db3 all exist and each have a table foo.bar, and psql is connected > to db1, how should the command \d db?.foo.bar behave? We have no problem > with db1.foo.bar, but we do have problems with the other two. If the answer > is to complain about the databases that are unconnected, consider what > happens if the user writes this in a script when only db1 exists, and later > the script stops working because somebody created database db2. Maybe that's > not completely horrible, but surely it is less than ideal. > > 3b is what pg_amcheck does. It accepts database.schema.relname, and it will > complain if no matching database/schema/relation can be found (unless > --no-strict-names was given.)
Well, like I said, we can't treat a part that's purportedly a DB name as a pattern, so when connected to db1, I presume the command \d db?.foo.bar would have to behave just like \d dskjlglsghdksgdjkshg.foo.bar. I suppose technically I'm wrong: db? could be matched against the list of database names as a pattern, and then we could complain only if it doesn't match exactly and only the current DB. But I don't like adding a bunch of extra code to accomplish nothing useful, so if we're going to match it all I think it should just strcmp(). But I'm still not sure what the best thing to do overall is here. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
