On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:30:54AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > OK, I have now applied the conditional display of "Replica Identity"
>> > patch (which is how it was originally coded anyway). The attached patch
>> > matches Tom's suggestion of displaying the same OID text, just
>> > conditionally.
>> > Seeing psql \d+ will have a conditional display line in PG 9.4, making
>> > OIDs conditional seems to make sense.
>> Frankly, I think this is all completely wrong-headed. \d+ should
>> display *everything*. That's what the + means, isn't it? Coming up
>> with complex rules for which things get shown and which things get
>> hidden just makes the output harder to understand, without any
>> compensating benefit.
> Well, there are lot of _other_ things we could display about the table
> that we don't. Are you suggesting we add those too? What about
> "Replica Identity"? Should that always display?
In \d+, I think it absolutely should.
> The bottom line is we already have complex rules to display only what is
> _reasonable_. If you want everything, you have to look at the system
I don't really agree with that. I understand that there's some
information (like dependencies) that you can't get through psql
because we don't really have a principled idea for what an interface
to that would look like, but I don't think that's a good thing. Every
time I have to write a query by hand to get some information instead
of being able to get it through a backslash command, that slows me
down considerably. But I'm lucky in that I actually know enough to do
that, which most users don't. Information that you can't get through
\d+ just isn't available to a large percentage of our user base
without huge effort. We shouldn't be stingy about putting stuff in
there that people may need to see.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: