Re: [HACKERS] Oddity with psql \d and pg_table_is_visible

2007-09-07 Thread Decibel!
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:27:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > While this is correct on a per-relation level, I'm thinking that it's > > not what we'd really like to have happen in psql. What I'd like \d to do > > is show me everything in any schema that's in m

Re: [HACKERS] Oddity with psql \d and pg_table_is_visible

2007-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While this is correct on a per-relation level, I'm thinking that it's > not what we'd really like to have happen in psql. What I'd like \d to do > is show me everything in any schema that's in my search_path, even if > there's something higher in the search_pa

[HACKERS] Oddity with psql \d and pg_table_is_visible

2007-09-05 Thread Decibel!
I have a database where I'd created a copy of pg_class in public. pgAdmin shows that the table exists, but \d doesn't. This is because of how pg_table_is_visible works, specifically this comment: /* * If it is in the path, it might still not be visible; it could be * hidden by another relation o