On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did > here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched > to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into > a form you don't like.
That looks fine. Minor grammar quibble about: + When commenting on a column, + <replaceable class="parameter">relation_name</replaceable> must refer + to a table, view, composite types, or foreign table. "types" should probably be the singular "type". >>>> * get rid of the bogus "Description" outputs for \d+ sequence_name >>>> and \d+ index_name > Committed this part to head with minor tweaks. Thanks for the commit. >>>> * The "Storage" column for \d+ sequence_name is correct, I suppose, >>>> but repetitive >>> >>> I'm OK with removing that. >> >> Hrm, would it be better to keep that Storage bit around in some >> non-repetitive form, maybe on its own line below the table output? > > Well, I don't really see that it has any value. I'd probably just > leave it the way it is, but if we're going to change something, I > would favor removing it over relocating it. I notice the "Storage" information is also repeated for multi-column indexes. I don't mind leaving this wart as-is for now, since single-column indexes are probably the norm, and we would presumably want to fix both types in one go. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
