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