* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) 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.
I concur with this and would rather they not be there. One of the
things that annoys me about certain other RDBMS's is how darn verbose
they are- it makes trying to read the definitions require much
head-scratching.
I'm on the fence about a \d++. In general, I get a bit annoyed when
certain information isn't available through the backslash commands, but
it's hard to justify another '+' level for just these.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
