From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
cc: Maiquel Grassi <grassi@hotmail.com.br>,
        David Christensen <david+pg@pgguru.net>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries
In-reply-to: <3707727.1774307021@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: 
 <CAKAnmmJz8Hh=8Ru8jgzySPWmLBhnv4=oc_0KRiz-UORJ0Dex+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHM0NXiD15-23=r1B9rHzKhS8e0+zwp_a6PncdLNetyF0xpNpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c180a366-fecc-4f3a-9c40-79eec526f70c@uni-muenster.de>
 <CAHM0NXheC3YO=ANPX0fCZKcQxMVBdgDzk9fc=-4TTCUN0aLYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8c9b9b7d-0868-46d4-963c-8b1906bd7a1b@eisentraut.org>
 <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>
 <72f6995a-75a6-4579-9e93-45a80f6bd956@eisentraut.org>
 <CAHM0NXi19okhdByr6cNDwqHtjG7umjbY5OmRMwgropZHs01KGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHM0NXhzU4oZJ00VUvbDL9gLoW2xUTLKZphoRCL3QWLGh5GE7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2597072.1737232674@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHM0NXgs4-k3cSg2J0rJd2CPiT40ZfYGs4SK6MAHi-HB3B7dUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CP4P284MB1968C2980DDC89049E619DD7ECAC2@CP4P284MB1968.BRAP284.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <CAKAnmmJ!
 ! fa1JsBp8pUYjGXfnHg70f0CynHctin8P8d-Og0pphYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3616299.1774287304@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKAnmmLBiq4kMHGVJrGVH5stkxvEFcxjM5c8X650ipX5cG6H-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3707727.1774307021@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 23 Mar 2026 19:03:41 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <999712.1774539713.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:41:53 -0400
Message-ID: <999713.1774539713@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/999713.1774539713%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> 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