Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature

Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> writes:
> I don't think there is an established practice on how to display this sort
> of info, but I see that both styles already exist, namely:

> =# \dL
> List of languages
> Name | Owner | Trusted | Description
> ------------+----------+---------+------------------------------
> plpgsql | postgres | t | PL/pgSQL procedural language
> plproxy | postgres | f |
> ...

> and

> =# \dC
> List of casts
> Source type | Target type | Function
> | Implicit?
> -----------------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------+---------------
> abstime | date | date
> | in assignment
> abstime | integer | (binary
> coercible) | no
> abstime | timestamp without time zone | timestamp
> | yes
> ...

> I like the second option more, for readability reasons and because it is
> easier to extend if ever needed.

> Given that the documentation refers to included columns as "non-key
> columns", it seems natural to me to name the \d output column "Key?" and
> use "yes/no" as the values.

WFM, anyone want to argue against?

regards, tom lane