Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> Now \d show tablespace of indices per discussion.
>
> test=# \d e
>Table "public.e"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> +-+---
> i | i
Now \d show tablespace of indices per discussion.
test=# \d e
Table "public.e"
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
i | integer | not null
j | integer | not null
k | integer |
Indexes:
"e_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (i, j), tablespace "haha"
"
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> "Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Does that look better or worse to you?
> >
> > I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about
> >
> > "mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace"
> >
> > "PRIMARY KEY
"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Does that look better or worse to you?
>
> I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about
>
> "mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace"
>
> "PRIMARY KEY" is currently separated from the rest of
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Does that look better or worse to you?
I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about
"mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace"
"PRIMARY KEY" is currently separated from the rest of the index
description via a comma -- although on the o
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 18:52 +0800, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>> Now \d+ is able to show the tablespace details of indices.
> Should this be included in \d? Tablespace information for the table
> itself is, so I think we should probably do the same for indexes.
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 18:52 +0800, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> Now \d+ is able to show the tablespace details of indices.
Should this be included in \d? Tablespace information for the table
itself is, so I think we should probably do the same for indexes.
Also, can you resend the patch as an attachmen
