Re: psql \d+ and oid display

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql \d+ and oid display
Date: 2014-04-08 22:51:04
Message-ID: 20140408225103.GG2556@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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.

I concur with this and would rather they not be there. One of the
things that annoys me about certain other RDBMS's is how darn verbose
they are- it makes trying to read the definitions require much
head-scratching.

I'm on the fence about a \d++. In general, I get a bit annoyed when
certain information isn't available through the backslash commands, but
it's hard to justify another '+' level for just these.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-04-08 23:07:56 Re: Default gin operator class of jsonb failing with index row size maximum reached
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-04-08 22:21:06 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)