* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > If we ignore backward compatibility, then "Has OIDs" and "Identity
> > Replica" are similar. One thing that strongly (for me) supports not
> > always printing them is that I expect more people will be confused by
> > the mention of OIDs or "Identity Replica" than will actually care about
> > these features. For example, if we always printed "Child tables: 0",
> > more people would be confused than helped.
>
> This is a good argument, actually: these fields are not only noise for
> most people, but confusing if you don't know the feature they are
> talking about.
I concur with this and would rather they not be there. One of the
things that annoys me about certain other RDBMS's is how darn verbose
they are- it makes trying to read the definitions require much
head-scratching.
I'm on the fence about a \d++. In general, I get a bit annoyed when
certain information isn't available through the backslash commands, but
it's hard to justify another '+' level for just these.
Thanks,
Stephen