On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 10:53 PM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-Feb-26, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > Or both? IOW, display comments if either that psql variable is enabled > > or "*" is specified in the \d command; otherwise, omit them. > > > > With this approach, users who prefer the current behavior (showing comments > > with the "+" option) can simply enable that psql variable and see comments > > without adding "*". Conversely, users who prefer not to include comments > > can disable that variable and use "*" only when they want to display them. > > I like this, thanks. I wonder though if the variable ought to be more > generic.
I'm fine with this direction, but I think it should be handled as a separate improvement to the \d meta-commands, rather than as part of the current patch extending \dRp+, \dRs+, and \dX+. I'm thinking to first commit the v3 patch so that comments on publications, subscriptions, and extended statistics can be viewed via \d. After that, we can consider a broader overhaul of the \d commands and how comments are displayed, as discussed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
