On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 01:02:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now we've got people > > saying "what the heck is a replica identity?". But, if the logical > > decoding stuff becomes popular, as I hope it will, that's going to be > > an important thing for people to adjust, and the information needs to > > be present in a clear and easily-understood way. I haven't studied > > the current code in detail so maybe it's fine. I just want to make > > sure we're not giving it second-class treatment solely on the basis > > that it's new and people aren't using it yet. > > I think the proposal is "don't mention the property if it has the > default value". That's not second-class status, as long as people > who know what the property is understand that behavior. It's just > conserving screen space.
Yes, the lines will certainly appear if you have set _anything_ as non-default, both oids and replica identity. Kind of the same as how we show indexes and child tables if any exist (it is non-default), and unlogged tables. I know I have fielded questions during training asking, "What is that OID line?", so I do know it confuses people. It does give me a chance to talk about it, but based on how often it is useful, I am not sure that is a win. Ideally we would deal with oids for 9.5, but since I think everyone agrees that replica identity and oids should behave the same, we need to decide this for 9.4. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
