On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:53:32PM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:54:26PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >> I believe Bruce was suggesting to show it when it is set to *not* the
> > >> default, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
> >
> > > We seem to be split on the idea of having "Has OIDs" display only when
> > > the oid status of the table does not match the default_with_oids
> > > default.
> >
> > FWIW, I think that having the display depend on what that GUC is set to
> > is a seriously *bad* idea. It will mean that you don't actually know,
> > when looking at the output of \d, whether the table has OIDs or not.
> >
> > I could get behind a proposal to suppress the line when there are not
> > OIDs, full stop; that is, we print either "Has OIDs: yes" or nothing.
> > But I think this patch just makes things even more surprising when
> > default_with_oids is turned on.
> >
>
> Something like the attached ?
I assume it would be more like my attachment, i.e. since we are only
displaying it when OIDs exist, there is no value for oid status field
--- just say "Has OIDs" or "Includes OIDs", or something like that.
I know some people are saying there is no need to change the current
output --- I am only saying that the importance of showing the lack of
OIDs has lessened over the years, and we should reconsider its
importance. If we reconsider and still think we are fine, that's good
with me. I am saying we should not just keep doing this because we have
always displayed it in the past.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +