Re: psql \d+ and oid display

On 2014-04-09 11:42:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 09:27:11AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > >> Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now we've got people
> > >> saying "what the heck is a replica identity?". But, if the logical
> > >> decoding stuff becomes popular, as I hope it will, that's going to be
> > >> an important thing for people to adjust, and the information needs to
> > >> be present in a clear and easily-understood way. I haven't studied
> > >> the current code in detail so maybe it's fine. I just want to make
> > >> sure we're not giving it second-class treatment solely on the basis
> > >> that it's new and people aren't using it yet.
> > >
> > > I think the proposal is "don't mention the property if it has the
> > > default value". That's not second-class status, as long as people
> > > who know what the property is understand that behavior. It's just
> > > conserving screen space.
> >
> > One thing that concerns me is that replica identity has a different
> > default for system tables (NOTHING) than for other tables (DEFAULT).
> > So when we say we're not going to display the default value, are we
> > going to display it when it's not NOTHING, when it's not DEFAULT, or
> > when it's not the actual default for that particular kind of table?
>
> We exclude pg_catalog from displaying Replica Identity due to this
> inconsistency.

I don't understand why it's inconsistent, but whatever.

> I assume this was desired because you can't replicate
> system tables. Is that true?

Yes.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services