On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This is at least inconsistent and at worst wildly misleading. ISTM > we ought to adopt some combination of the following ideas:
I vote for this combination: > 3. Don't show either pg_temp_nn or pg_toast_temp_nn schemas, not even > for the current backend. and > With any of 1-3 we could also consider adding a rule that \dn+ > doesn't hide them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
