On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 05:29:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> > If we ignore backward compatibility, then "Has OIDs" and "Identity >> > Replica" are similar. One thing that strongly (for me) supports not >> > always printing them is that I expect more people will be confused by >> > the mention of OIDs or "Identity Replica" than will actually care about >> > these features. For example, if we always printed "Child tables: 0", >> > more people would be confused than helped. >> >> This is a good argument, actually: these fields are not only noise for >> most people, but confusing if you don't know the feature they are >> talking about. > > Let me put it this way: I didn't know what "Identity Replica" meant > when I saw it in psql. Now, some might say that is expected, but still. ;-)
Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now we've got people saying "what the heck is a replica identity?". But, if the logical decoding stuff becomes popular, as I hope it will, that's going to be an important thing for people to adjust, and the information needs to be present in a clear and easily-understood way. I haven't studied the current code in detail so maybe it's fine. I just want to make sure we're not giving it second-class treatment solely on the basis that it's new and people aren't using it yet. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
