On Mar 28, 2014, at 2:41 PM, 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.
Agreed. > 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. I see little reason to tinker with the status quo. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
