On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:33:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:16:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Are you saying most people like "Has OIDs: yes", or the idea of just
> > > displaying _a_ line if there are OIDs? Based on default_with_oids,
> > > perhaps we should display "With OIDs".
> >
> > > I agree it is no unanimous. I am curious how large the majority has to
> > > be to change a psql display value.
> >
> > What I actually suggested was not *changing* the line when it's to be
> > displayed, but suppressing it in the now-standard case where there's no
> > OIDs.
> >
> > Personally I find the argument that backwards compatibility must be
> > preserved to be pretty bogus; we have no hesitation in changing the
> > output of \d anytime we add a new feature. So I don't think there's
> > a good compatibility reason why the line has to be spelled exactly
> > "Has OIDs: yes" --- but there is a consistency reason, which is that
> > everything else we print in this part of the \d output is of the form
> > "label: info".
>
> Ah, now I understand it --- you can argue that the new "Replica
> Identity" follows the same pattern, showing only for non-defaults (or at
> least it will once I commit the pending patch to do that).
OK, I have now applied the conditional display of "Replica Identity"
patch (which is how it was originally coded anyway). The attached patch
matches Tom's suggestion of displaying the same OID text, just
conditionally.
Seeing psql \d+ will have a conditional display line in PG 9.4, making
OIDs conditional seems to make sense.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +