On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 05:29:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > If we ignore backward compatibility, then "Has OIDs" and "Identity > > Replica" are similar. One thing that strongly (for me) supports not > > always printing them is that I expect more people will be confused by > > the mention of OIDs or "Identity Replica" than will actually care about > > these features. For example, if we always printed "Child tables: 0", > > more people would be confused than helped. > > This is a good argument, actually: these fields are not only noise for > most people, but confusing if you don't know the feature they are > talking about.
Let me put it this way: I didn't know what "Identity Replica" meant when I saw it in psql. Now, some might say that is expected, but still. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
