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

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdsz6M1VsQ82n1wWUf22QCKgLjgzXjyURrCi2Ad-atFUkw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature  (Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:14 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

regression=# \d tbl_include_reg_idx
Index "public.tbl_include_reg_idx"
 Column |  Type   | Key | Definition
--------+---------+------------------
 c1     | integer | t   | c1
 c2     | integer | t   | c2
 c3     | integer | f   | c3
 c4     | box     | f   | c4
btree, for table "public.tbl_include_reg"

​+1 for the additional column indicating whether the column is being treated as key data or supplemental included data.​
 
+1
And especially I don't think we should place word "INCLUDE" to the definition column.

​-1 for printing a boolean t/f; would rather spell it out:

IMHO, t/f have advantage of brevity.  From my point of view, covering indexes are not so evident feature.  So, users need to spend some time reading documentation before realizing what they are and how to use them.  So, I don't expect that short designation of INCLUDE columns as "non-key" (Key == false) columns could be discouraging here.
 
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Have an encrypted pgpass file
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Have an encrypted pgpass file