On 2014-04-09 11:42:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 09:27:11AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now we've got people > > >> saying "what the heck is a replica identity?". But, if the logical > > >> decoding stuff becomes popular, as I hope it will, that's going to be > > >> an important thing for people to adjust, and the information needs to > > >> be present in a clear and easily-understood way. I haven't studied > > >> the current code in detail so maybe it's fine. I just want to make > > >> sure we're not giving it second-class treatment solely on the basis > > >> that it's new and people aren't using it yet. > > > > > > I think the proposal is "don't mention the property if it has the > > > default value". That's not second-class status, as long as people > > > who know what the property is understand that behavior. It's just > > > conserving screen space. > > > > One thing that concerns me is that replica identity has a different > > default for system tables (NOTHING) than for other tables (DEFAULT). > > So when we say we're not going to display the default value, are we > > going to display it when it's not NOTHING, when it's not DEFAULT, or > > when it's not the actual default for that particular kind of table? > > We exclude pg_catalog from displaying Replica Identity due to this > inconsistency.
I don't understand why it's inconsistent, but whatever. > I assume this was desired because you can't replicate > system tables. Is that true? Yes. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
