From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de>
cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>,
        "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
In-reply-to: 
 <CACACo5Si9=k=jYodyRD9ykzBjSki2h6-=sbR-YSTYu6EpPKBXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21724.1531943735@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwaT0udU_htnavvKjS1z1hQKEevc2hdj1LyikrrqK=T9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsz6M1VsQ82n1wWUf22QCKgLjgzXjyURrCi2Ad-atFUkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACACo5Si9=k=jYodyRD9ykzBjSki2h6-=sbR-YSTYu6EpPKBXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de>
	message dated "Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:04:01 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23117.1532013060.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:11:00 -0400
Message-ID: <23118.1532013060@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> writes:
> I don't think there is an established practice on how to display this so=
rt
> of info, but I see that both styles already exist, namely:

> =3D# \dL
>                        List of languages
>     Name    |  Owner   | Trusted |         Description
> ------------+----------+---------+------------------------------
>  plpgsql    | postgres | t       | PL/pgSQL procedural language
>  plproxy    | postgres | f       |
> ...

> and

> =3D# \dC
>                                          List of casts
>          Source type         |         Target type         |      Functi=
on
>     |   Implicit?
> -----------------------------+-----------------------------+------------=
--------+---------------
>  abstime                     | date                        | date
>      | in assignment
>  abstime                     | integer                     | (binary
> coercible) | no
>  abstime                     | timestamp without time zone | timestamp
>     | yes
> ...

> I like the second option more, for readability reasons and because it is
> easier to extend if ever needed.

> Given that the documentation refers to included columns as "non-key
> columns", it seems natural to me to name the \d output column "Key?" and
> use "yes/no" as the values.

WFM, anyone want to argue against?

			regards, tom lane