| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql \d+ and oid display |
| Date: | 2014-04-08 21:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20140408213749.GC8685@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 05:29:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > If we ignore backward compatibility, then "Has OIDs" and "Identity
> > Replica" are similar. One thing that strongly (for me) supports not
> > always printing them is that I expect more people will be confused by
> > the mention of OIDs or "Identity Replica" than will actually care about
> > these features. For example, if we always printed "Child tables: 0",
> > more people would be confused than helped.
>
> This is a good argument, actually: these fields are not only noise for
> most people, but confusing if you don't know the feature they are
> talking about.
Let me put it this way: I didn't know what "Identity Replica" meant
when I saw it in psql. Now, some might say that is expected, but still. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2014-04-08 21:37:55 | Re: Default gin operator class of jsonb failing with index row size maximum reached |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-08 21:34:01 | Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation |