On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> I think we could easily improve that by having it look something like >> this instead: > >> Table "public.test2" >> Column | Type | Modifiers >> --------+---------+----------- >> a | integer | PK >> b | integer | PK >> Indexes: >> "test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b) > > Spelling out "primary key" would seem to be more in keeping with existing > entries in that column, eg we have "not null" not "NN". > > I think this is a sensible proposal for a single-column PK, but am less > sure that it makes sense for multi-col. The modifiers column is > intended to describe column constraints; which a multi-col PK is not, > by definition.
Yeah, IIRC, MySQL shows PRI for each column of a multi-column primary key, and I think it's horribly confusing. I wouldn't even be in favor of doing this just for the single-column case, on the grounds that it makes the single and multiple column cases asymmetrical. IMO, the \d output has too many bells and whistles already; the last thing we should do is add more. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
