Re: psql's \dn versus temp schemas

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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.

This approach makes sense to me too; I'd be inclined to hide pg_toast as
well under the same rules.  In all of these cases, the schemas are not
meant to be referred to explicitly.  I think that the original
motivation for letting \dn show the backend's own pg_temp_nn schema
was that there were cases where you needed to refer to it by name.
Since then, we invented the "pg_temp" alias mechanism, which seems to
remove most of the need for that.

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

Hmm.  If we had a \dnS option, what I would sorta expect it to do is
show the "system" schemas pg_catalog and information_schema.  The toast
and temp schemas seem like a different category somehow.  On the other
hand, if we did it like this, then the S and + modifiers would be
orthogonal which is a nice property.

Anyone else have an opinion?
        regards, tom lane