* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:54:26PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> I believe Bruce was suggesting to show it when it is set to *not* the > >> default, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable. > > > We seem to be split on the idea of having "Has OIDs" display only when > > the oid status of the table does not match the default_with_oids > > default. > > FWIW, I think that having the display depend on what that GUC is set to > is a seriously *bad* idea. It will mean that you don't actually know, > when looking at the output of \d, whether the table has OIDs or not.
Good point- I don't really consider that a parameter that people change,
but there probably are folks out there who do change it.
> I could get behind a proposal to suppress the line when there are not
> OIDs, full stop; that is, we print either "Has OIDs: yes" or nothing.
> But I think this patch just makes things even more surprising when
> default_with_oids is turned on.
Works for me.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
