On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 01:02:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.
Yes, the lines will certainly appear if you have set _anything_ as
non-default, both oids and replica identity. Kind of the same as how we
show indexes and child tables if any exist (it is non-default), and
unlogged tables.
I know I have fielded questions during training asking, "What is that
OID line?", so I do know it confuses people. It does give me a chance
to talk about it, but based on how often it is useful, I am not sure
that is a win.
Ideally we would deal with oids for 9.5, but since I think everyone
agrees that replica identity and oids should behave the same, we need to
decide this for 9.4.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
