Re: make \d pg_toast.foo show its indices

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> IMHO, what makes more sense is to show the name of associated toast
>>> table in the \dt+ of the normal table.

>> I'm not for that: it's useless information in at least 99.44% of cases.

> I don't think I'd put it in \dt+, but the toast table is still
> pg_toast.pg_toast_{relOid}, right? What about showing the OID of the
> table in the \d output, eg:
> => \d comments
> Table "public.comments" (50788)

Not unless you want to break every regression test that uses \d.
Instability of the output is also a reason not to show the
toast table's name in the parent's \d[+].

>> Possibly it is useful in the other direction as Justin suggests.
>> Not sure though --- generally, if you're looking at a specific
>> toast table, you already know which table is its parent. But
>> maybe confirmation is a good thing.

> As mentioned elsewhere, there are certainly times when you don't know
> that info and if you're looking at the definition of a TOAST table,
> which isn't terribly complex, it seems like a good idea to go ahead and
> include the table it's the TOAST table for.

I'm not against putting that info into the result of \d on the toast
table.

regards, tom lane