From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+ |
Date: | 2011-07-27 01:21:46 |
Message-ID: | CAK3UJRHnnp415DgMkUFn9_GzrSsVFJo8SFFndyPkMMrfeM6DLg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
> here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
> to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into
> a form you don't like.
That looks fine. Minor grammar quibble about:
+ When commenting on a column,
+ <replaceable class="parameter">relation_name</replaceable> must refer
+ to a table, view, composite types, or foreign table.
"types" should probably be the singular "type".
>>>> * get rid of the bogus "Description" outputs for \d+ sequence_name
>>>> and \d+ index_name
> Committed this part to head with minor tweaks.
Thanks for the commit.
>>>> * The "Storage" column for \d+ sequence_name is correct, I suppose,
>>>> but repetitive
>>>
>>> I'm OK with removing that.
>>
>> Hrm, would it be better to keep that Storage bit around in some
>> non-repetitive form, maybe on its own line below the table output?
>
> Well, I don't really see that it has any value. I'd probably just
> leave it the way it is, but if we're going to change something, I
> would favor removing it over relocating it.
I notice the "Storage" information is also repeated for multi-column
indexes. I don't mind leaving this wart as-is for now, since
single-column indexes are probably the norm, and we would presumably
want to fix both types in one go.
Josh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 01:32:54 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2011-07-27 00:38:09 | Re: psql: display of object comments |