Re: PATCH: psql show index with type info

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amos Bird <amosbird(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: psql show index with type info
Date: 2017-03-09 18:42:40
Message-ID: 20170309184240.GO9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 3/8/17 08:30, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Right, I don't think having an extra column which is going to be NULL a
> > large amount of the time is good.
>
> Note that \di already has a column "Table" that is null for something
> that is not an index. So I don't think this argument is very strong.

That's an interesting point.

I think what I find most odd about all of this is that \dti and \dit
work at all, and give a different set of columns from \dt. We don't
document that combining those works in \?, as far as I can see, and
other combinations don't work, just this.

In any case, I won't push very hard on this, it's useful information to
include and we should do so.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2017-03-09 18:49:40 Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-03-09 18:35:26 Re: PATCH: psql show index with type info