Re: PATCH: psql show index with type info

Hello Stephen,

Well, the prefix is used to differentiate other \d commands, like
this,

amos=# \ditv
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type | Owner | Table
--------+--------------------+--------------+-------+---------
public | i | table | amos |
public | ii | index: gist | amos | i
public | j | table | amos |
public | jj | index: gin | amos | i
public | jp | index: btree | amos | i
public | js | index: brin | amos | i
public | numbers | table | amos |
public | numbers_mod2 | index: gin | amos | numbers
public | numbers_mod2_btree | index: btree | amos | numbers
public | ts | table | amos |
(10 rows)

regards,
Amos

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:

> Greetings,
>
> * Amos Bird (amosbird(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> psql currently supports \di+ to view indexes,
>>
>> List of relations
>> Schema | Name | Type | Owner | Table | Size | Description
>> --------+--------------------+-------+-------+---------+--------+-------------
>> public | ii | index | amos | i | 131 MB |
>> public | jj | index | amos | i | 12 MB |
>> public | kk | index | amos | i | 456 kB |
>> public | numbers_mod2 | index | amos | numbers | 10 MB |
>> public | numbers_mod2_btree | index | amos | numbers | 214 MB |
>> (5 rows)
>>
>> The co
>> lumn "Type" is kinda useless (all equals to index). Representing
>> the actual index type will be more interesting,
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Schema | Name | Type | Owner | Table | Size | Description
>> --------+--------------------+--------------+-------+---------+--------+-------------
>> public | ii | index: gist | amos | i | 131 MB |
>> public | jj | index: gin | amos | i | 12 MB |
>> public | kk | index: btree | amos | i | 456 kB |
>> public | numbers_mod2 | index: gin | amos | numbers | 10 MB |
>> public | numbers_mod2_btree | index: btree | amos | numbers | 214 MB |
>> (5 rows)
>>
>> I'm not sure where to add documentations about this patch or if needed one. Please help
>> me if you think this patch is useful.
>
> I'm not sure why it's useful to keep the 'index:'? I would suggest we
> just drop that and keep only the actual index type (gist, gin, etc).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen