Robert Haas wrote:
> I have committed this patch with a few changes.
Thanks.
> First, I felt that there was little point in showing this detail
> only in verbose mode; indeed, it seems like that could be confusing
> in some circumstances. (I thought I checked this was an index not
> a constraint? Oh, crap, I forgot to say \d+). So I removed that
> check.
Well, *I* agree that it makes more sense to show it whether or not
the + is specified, but I figured I was probably outnumbered, so I
let that go:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-04/msg00414.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-04/msg00417.php
Since you and I now make two votes in the other direction, and Josh
didn't seem to particularly care, we're now two votes to one in favor
of always showing it. Note that this means that the possible
breakage of people's parsing of psql output now extends to the \d
command, not just \d+ (which was what I was assuming was driving the
preference for the more limited change).
> Second, I felt that UNIQUE, CONSTRAINT, btree (a) was one too many
> commas, so I made it just say UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (a) instead.
My bad. Josh had it your way; I accidentally introduced the extra
comma when I rearranged it for code readability. :-( Thanks for
catching that.
-Kevin