On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > After a bit of review of the archives, the somebody was me: > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=b7d67954456f15762c04e5269b64adc88dcd0860 > > and this thread was the discussion about it: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01982.php > > It looks like we thought about pg_dump, but did not think about psql.
Ah, interesting. I didn't even know this functionality existed. And I think there is some documentation lacking; in the 8.4 doc page: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-comment.html I don't see any mention of comments on an index's columns. And the docs also neglect to mention comments on a view's columns as well, which is why I thought \d+ view_name was producing bogus output as well (it's really looking for those column comments). > I think it might be reasonable to remove the Description column from > \d+ output for indexes and sequences, on the grounds that (1) it's > useless against 9.x servers, and (2) for those relkinds we add other > columns and so the horizontal space is precious. AFAICT the extra Description column for \d+ sequence_name is bogus in both 8.4 and 9.0, so there should be no objections to ripping that out. > We could also consider showing Description only when talking to a > pre-9.0 server; but that's going to render the code even more > spaghetti-ish, and the value seems pretty limited. And as for \d+ index_name, I agree with Robert's sentiments here, doesn't seem worth the bother. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
