From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
In-reply-to: <20180718202632.i6lsh3dlzj6ygury@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180718202632.i6lsh3dlzj6ygury@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:26:32 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24240.1531946776.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:46:16 -0400
Message-ID: <24241.1531946776@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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