From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
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 16:46:16 -0400
Message-ID: <24241.1531946776@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180718202632.i6lsh3dlzj6ygury@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180718202632.i6lsh3dlzj6ygury@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Jul-18, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> -1 for printing a boolean t/f; would rather spell it out:
>>
>> CASE WHEN "Key" THEN 'Key' ELSE 'Included' END AS "Data"
> +1
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'd be OK with "Key"/"Included" as the values if someone can
propose an on-point column header to go with those.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
In-Reply-To: <24241.1531946776@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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