Re: psql \d+ and oid display

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql \d+ and oid display
Date: 2014-03-29 22:10:00
Message-ID: 20140329221000.GC30470@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 03/29/2014 04:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:59:36AM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> >>As my belief is that 99% of the uses of \d are for human consumption
> >>(because machines should in most cases hit the catalogs directly) then
> >>strictly displaying "Includes OIDs" when appropriate has my +1.
> >>
> >>Uses of \d+ in regression suites will be obvious and quickly fixed and
> >>likely account for another 0.9%.
> >>
> >>psql backslash commands are not machine API contracts and should be adapted
> >>for optimal human consumption; thus neutering the argument for maintaining
> >>backward compatibility.
> >One other issue --- we are adding conditional display of "Replica
> >Identity" to psql \d+ in 9.4, so users processing \d+ output are already
> >going to have to make adjustments for 9.4. That is another reason I am
> >asking about this now.
> >
>
>
> I think Tom's suggestion probably has the most support, although
> it's not unanimous.

Are you saying most people like "Has OIDs: yes", or the idea of just
displaying _a_ line if there are OIDs? Based on default_with_oids,
perhaps we should display "With OIDs".

I agree it is no unanimous. I am curious how large the majority has to
be to change a psql display value.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-03-29 22:10:57 Re: pgsql: Revert "Secure Unix-domain sockets of "make check" temporary clu
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-03-29 21:44:14 Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving?