| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Itzinger, Oskar" <oitzinger(at)opec(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i |
| Date: | 2001-06-22 23:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | 6394.993251860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> test=> \d
> No relations found.
> test=> \di
> No relations found.
> test=> \dS
> List of relations
> Name | Type | Owner
> ----------------+----------+----------
> ...
> pg_temp_5396_0 | sequence | postgres
> pg_temp_5396_1 | table | postgres
Hm. Shouldn't psql's \dS ignore temp items, since \d and \di do?
Otherwise this looks pretty good...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-22 23:21:19 | Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:13:09 | Re: Multiple Indexing, performance impact |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-22 23:22:04 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-22 23:04:19 | Re: [GENERAL] [Help] Temporary Table: Implicitely created index not shown in \d i |