| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: | 2014-04-09 05:02:05 |
| Message-ID: | 5559.1397019725@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajeev rastogi | 2014-04-09 05:05:53 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Rajeev rastogi | 2014-04-09 04:24:04 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |