public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
Cc: Maiquel Grassi <[email protected]>
Cc: David Christensen <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Jim Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:41:53 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAKAnmmJz8Hh=8Ru8jgzySPWmLBhnv4=oc_0KRiz-UORJ0Dex+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHM0NXiD15-23=r1B9rHzKhS8e0+zwp_a6PncdLNetyF0xpNpA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAHM0NXheC3YO=ANPX0fCZKcQxMVBdgDzk9fc=-4TTCUN0aLYWA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAKAnmmL6-U+QPsuWM0r8mNq0Lo80d8L=cR7JLk7pypXJfwt=EA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHM0NXjO-Thdj+DqT5SOfLGVP-aVKhguiRfmkLDu4BJ_H-gg0A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKAnmmJq-13e74uSwDSnx0isA+9N0ByV+cscV4knpWo_mpM1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHM0NXi5G9RwtH_MRQkh2jcZMvn8Uubm9pMn=KW-AuwYcNk51w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAHM0NXi19okhdByr6cNDwqHtjG7umjbY5OmRMwgropZHs01KGw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHM0NXhzU4oZJ00VUvbDL9gLoW2xUTLKZphoRCL3QWLGh5GE7A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAHM0NXgs4-k3cSg2J0rJd2CPiT40ZfYGs4SK6MAHi-HB3B7dUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CP4P284MB1968C2980DDC89049E619DD7ECAC2@CP4P284MB1968.BRAP284.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
<CAKAnmmJ! ! [email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAKAnmmLBiq4kMHGVJrGVH5stkxvEFcxjM5c8X650ipX5cG6H-g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
I wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Notably, I didn't like that some of the headers said "table" and some said
>>> "relation". I made them all say "table", although you could certainly
>>> argue for the opposite.
>> I originally had "table", but then it felt weird in my testing when I was
>> describing a sequence or view it said table. So I'm a weak +1 for relation.
> My preference for "table" is likewise weak. Anyone else have an
> opinion?
[ crickets... ]
After sleeping on it and taking another look at the output, I agree
that we need to use a mix of "relation" and "table", because some of
these queries definitely apply to all kinds of pg_class entries, while
for others we must be dealing with a table (or something reasonably
table-like, such as a foreign table). I made another pass over it
to fix that, and pushed the results.
Thanks for working on this! I know it's been a long process,
but sometimes that's what it takes to get to a consensus.
regards, tom lane
view thread (13+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox