Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghack...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 16:27, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > >> Thanks - what about also showing the associated non-toast table ? > > > 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)
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
etc?
> 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.
> That seems off-topic for this thread though. I agree with the
> stated premise that \d on a toast table should show all the same
> information \d on a regular table would.
+1
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
