On 15 July 2010 17:16, Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> On 15 July 2010 17:07, Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it's only a psql problem, why implement it as SQL? Is it just so
>>>> we're
>>>> not adding keywords specifically to psql? In that case, it shouldn't
>>>> support QUIT.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think this is somethign that should go into the backend ...
>>> I'd like to be able to write perl scripts that talk to the backend
>>> without
>>> having to remember all the various system tables I need to query / join
>>> to
>>> get the same results as \d gives me in psql ... same for any interface
>>> language, really ...
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that what the information_schema catalog is for?
>
> I'd rather write:
>
> SHOW TABLES;
>
> then:
>
> SELECT table_name
> FROM information_schema.tables
> WHERE table_type = 'BASE TABLE'
> AND table_schema NOT IN
> ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema');
>
> And, the latter, unless I'm doing it regularly, is alot harder to remember
> then the former ...
Yes, I see what you mean now. That would simplify things greatly.
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
