MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHut+PtecJnFckGxEMT0-yhW=nTDR9aVcWpn_G+rFWTLTkP=YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aiv9oBhW8mL_F8Yn@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAHut+PvaHNdgHoCfTq9K60PJpe_L7M3sswgiDe2R=XVEaOfapg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHut+PvaHNdgHoCfTq9K60PJpe_L7M3sswgiDe2R=XVEaOfapg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:06:33 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1+e-a2nEA-fzQcE91vu8XpEC62R7tshPC14gp-jX1mqYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PSQL - prevent describe listing tables that are already in listed
 schemas
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>,
	Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>,
 Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2Be-a2nEA-fzQcE91vu8XpEC62R7tshPC14gp-jX1mqYg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 7:32=E2=80=AFAM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 10:54=E2=80=AFPM =C3=81lvaro Herrera <alvherre@ku=
rilemu.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026-May-21, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > > The new tests in patch v5 look good to me.
> >
> > So do we want to consider this a backpatchable bugfix, or just a
> > new-feature-ish quality of life improvement?  If the former, then we
> > should probably backpatch it; otherwise we would normally wait until
> > pg20 opens.  Though to be honest I would also consider this as
> > borderline okay to include in pg19 for beta2 -- especially considering
> > that the output in 19 is already changed by the EXCEPT TABLE listing
> > additions.
> >
> > Given that it applies to servers back to 15, that means that in the
> > situation where it applies, pg19's psql (or pg20's) output would be
> > different than earlier ones given identical database state.  I'm not
> > sure that would be really great.
> >
> > What do others think?
>
> FWIW, when I wrote this, in my mind I considered it more like the
> "quality of life improvement" because it is mostly about not
> displaying redundant information, rather than fixing any major bug.
>

+1. I also feel this should be considered as an improvement for PG20.

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.