On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I've now committed most of this, with some additions to the
> documentation. Remaining bits attached.
Looks good, thanks.
> I am a bit confused as to why we have both \det and \dE. They seem
> redundant. Shouldn't we rip one of those out? IMHO, \det should be
> the one to go, as it could be useful to do, e.g. \dtvE, which isn't
> going to work with the \det syntax.
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. At first I thought maybe someone
added in one without being aware of the other, but it looks like both
\dE and \det got added in by commit
0d692a0dc9f0e532c67c577187fe5d7d323cb95b. They are using different
queries internally (pg_class vs. pg_foreign_table), but I doubt end
users would care about that. Or perhaps the author just wanted a
command name similar to \dew and \des.
+1 for getting rid of one of them; I don't really care which one gets
the axe. Though we should make sure to be able to show all possible
columns in whichever command we keep (i.e. add "Options" column to
\dE+ if we keep that one). BTW, I haven't bothered setting up
functioning foreign tables yet, but is "Size" always going to be 0
bytes in \dE+?
Josh