On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@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...@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.
