On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:01 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Based on a quick skim of the thread - which means I most definitely > > missed things - there's not been discussion of why we actually want to > > add this. Who's the prospective user of this facility? And why wouldn't > > they just query pg_am[proc]? None of this information seems like it's > > going to be even remotely targeted towards even advanced users. For > > developers it's not clear what these add? > > I see your point regarding pg_am details. Probably nobody expect > developers need this. And probably even developers don't need this, > because it's easier to see IndexAmRoutine directly with more details. > So, +1 for removing this. > > pg_amproc for gin/gist/sp-gist/brin is probably for developers. But I > think pg_amproc for btree/hash could be useful for advanced users. > btree/hash opclasses could be written by advanced users using > pl/something, I've faced that several times.
Revised patch is attached. Changes to \dA+ command are reverted. It also contains some minor improvements. Second patch looks problematic for me, because it provides index description alternative to \d+. IMHO, if there is something really useful to display about index, we should keep it in \d+. So, I propose to postpone this. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
0001-Add-psql-AM-info-commands-v09.patch
Description: Binary data
