Robert Haas wrote: > I have committed this patch with a few changes. Thanks. > First, I felt that there was little point in showing this detail > only in verbose mode; indeed, it seems like that could be confusing > in some circumstances. (I thought I checked this was an index not > a constraint? Oh, crap, I forgot to say \d+). So I removed that > check. Well, *I* agree that it makes more sense to show it whether or not the + is specified, but I figured I was probably outnumbered, so I let that go: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-04/msg00414.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-04/msg00417.php Since you and I now make two votes in the other direction, and Josh didn't seem to particularly care, we're now two votes to one in favor of always showing it. Note that this means that the possible breakage of people's parsing of psql output now extends to the \d command, not just \d+ (which was what I was assuming was driving the preference for the more limited change). > Second, I felt that UNIQUE, CONSTRAINT, btree (a) was one too many > commas, so I made it just say UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (a) instead. My bad. Josh had it your way; I accidentally introduced the extra comma when I rearranged it for code readability. :-( Thanks for catching that. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
