> On Feb 27, 2026, at 07:09, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
To me, that sounds reasonable.
Best regards,
—
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
