On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
> here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
> to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into
> a form you don't like.
That looks fine. Minor grammar quibble about:
+ When commenting on a column,
+ <replaceable class="parameter">relation_name</replaceable> must refer
+ to a table, view, composite types, or foreign table.
"types" should probably be the singular "type".
>>>> * get rid of the bogus "Description" outputs for \d+ sequence_name
>>>> and \d+ index_name
> Committed this part to head with minor tweaks.
Thanks for the commit.
>>>> * The "Storage" column for \d+ sequence_name is correct, I suppose,
>>>> but repetitive
>>>
>>> I'm OK with removing that.
>>
>> Hrm, would it be better to keep that Storage bit around in some
>> non-repetitive form, maybe on its own line below the table output?
>
> Well, I don't really see that it has any value. I'd probably just
> leave it the way it is, but if we're going to change something, I
> would favor removing it over relocating it.
I notice the "Storage" information is also repeated for multi-column
indexes. I don't mind leaving this wart as-is for now, since
single-column indexes are probably the norm, and we would presumably
want to fix both types in one go.
Josh
