On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Or perhaps another option would be to make \dnS display these.  Not
sure whether I like that or not.

-- 
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

Reply via email to