Re: EXCEPT TABLE - Case inconsistency for describe \d and \dRp+

On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 4:34 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:10 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026-Apr-10, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > > # -- describe the tables
> > > # \d t1
> > > Table "public.t1"
> > > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
> > > --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
> > > a | integer | | |
> > > Except Publications:
> > > "pub1"
> >
> > I have a hard time understanding what an "except publication" is. I
> > think this would be clearer if the header said "Excluded from publications:"
> >
>
> I agree that your suggestion is clearer.
>
> If we make that change, then should the "Publications:" footer also be
> modified similarly (to "Included in publications:") so they match?
>
> e.g.
>
> CURRENTLY
>
> test_pub=# \d t1
> Table "public.t1"
> Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
> a | integer | | |
> Publications:
> "pub1"
> "pub2"
> Except publications:
> "pub3"
>
> ~~~
>
> SUGGESTION
>
> test_pub=# \d t1
> Table "public.t1"
> Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
> a | integer | | |
> Included in publications:
> "pub1"
> "pub2"
> Excluded from publications:
> "pub3"
>
> ~~~
>

+1 for the proposal. It makes the description clear.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.