Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghack...@gmail.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
