From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:05:44 -0400
Message-ID: <20180718210544.ynej3c6oos45u5t7@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24241.1531946776@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2018-Jul-18, Tom Lane wrote:
> I can sympathize with the eyestrain argument against t/f, but the
> above doesn't seem like an improvement --- in particular, "Data"
> as the column header seems quite content-free. My counterproposal
> is to keep "Key" as the header and use "Yes"/"No" as the values.
I think "Key: no" is a bit obscure -- using "included" is a bit more
self-documenting and lends better to documentation searches.
> I'd be OK with "Key"/"Included" as the values if someone can
> propose an on-point column header to go with those.
"Role"?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
In-Reply-To: <20180718210544.ynej3c6oos45u5t7@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox