Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 12:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:

> On 2023-Jul-25, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> > I agree. I definitely do *not* want a bunch of NOT NULL constraint names
> > cluttering up displays. Can we legislate that all NOT NULL implementing
> > constraints are named by mashing together the table name, column name,
> and
> > something to identify it as a NOT NULL constraint?
>
> All constraints are named like that already, and NOT NULL constraints
> just inherited the same idea. The names are <table>_<column>_not_null
> for NOT NULL constraints. pg_dump goes great lengths to avoid printing
> constraint names when they have this pattern.
>

OK, this is helpful. Can \d do the same thing? I use a lot of NOT NULL
constraints and I very seriously do not want \d (including \d+) to have an
extra line for almost every column. It's just noise, and while my screen is
large, it's still not infinite.

I do not want these constraint names cluttering the output either.
> That's why I propose moving them to a new \d++ command, where they will
> only bother you if you absolutely need them. But so far I have only one
> vote supporting that idea.

My suggestion is for \d+ to show NOT NULL constraints only if there is
something weird going on (wrong name, duplicate constraints, …). If there
is nothing weird about the constraint then explicitly listing it provides
absolutely no information that is not given by "not null" in the "Nullable"
column. Easier said than done I suppose. I'm just worried about my \d+
displays becoming less useful.