On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 08:27, Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 3:24 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 4:34 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:10 AM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2026-Apr-10, Peter Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > > # -- describe the tables > > > > > # \d t1 > > > > > Table "public.t1" > > > > > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > > > > > --------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > > > > > a | integer | | | > > > > > Except Publications: > > > > > "pub1" > > > > > > > > I have a hard time understanding what an "except publication" is. I > > > > think this would be clearer if the header said "Excluded from > > > > publications:" > > > > > > > > > > I agree that your suggestion is clearer. > > > > > > If we make that change, then should the "Publications:" footer also be > > > modified similarly (to "Included in publications:") so they match? > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > CURRENTLY > > > > > > test_pub=# \d t1 > > > Table "public.t1" > > > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > > > --------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > > > a | integer | | | > > > Publications: > > > "pub1" > > > "pub2" > > > Except publications: > > > "pub3" > > > > > > ~~~ > > > > > > SUGGESTION > > > > > > test_pub=# \d t1 > > > Table "public.t1" > > > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > > > --------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > > > a | integer | | | > > > Included in publications: > > > "pub1" > > > "pub2" > > > Excluded from publications: > > > "pub3" > > > > > > ~~~ > > > > > > > +1 for the proposal. It makes the description clear. > > > > PSA v3 patches. > > v3-0001 - Fixed the TABLE describe footer titles as suggested. > - "Included in publications:" > - "Excluded from publications:" > > v3-0002 - Made similar footer title changes for SEQUENCE describe > > v3-0003 - Made similar footer title changes for SHCEMA describe. In > passing, I found that this \dn describe output was not even being > tested, so I added the missing regression test.
I'm not sure separate patches are necessary for this change; it might be better to merge them into a single patch. Other than that, the changes look good. Regards, Vignesh
