Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
Date
Msg-id 20180718210544.ynej3c6oos45u5t7@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2018-Jul-18, Tom Lane wrote:

> I can sympathize with the eyestrain argument against t/f, but the
> above doesn't seem like an improvement --- in particular, "Data"
> as the column header seems quite content-free.  My counterproposal
> is to keep "Key" as the header and use "Yes"/"No" as the values.

I think "Key: no" is a bit obscure -- using "included" is a bit more
self-documenting and lends better to documentation searches.

> I'd be OK with "Key"/"Included" as the values if someone can
> propose an on-point column header to go with those.

"Role"?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: GiST VACUUM