On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 05:29:45PM -0400, Tom Lane 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.
>
> Let me put it this way: I didn't know what "Identity Replica" meant
> when I saw it in psql. Now, some might say that is expected, but still. ;-)
Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now we've got people
saying "what the heck is a replica identity?". But, if the logical
decoding stuff becomes popular, as I hope it will, that's going to be
an important thing for people to adjust, and the information needs to
be present in a clear and easily-understood way. I haven't studied
the current code in detail so maybe it's fine. I just want to make
sure we're not giving it second-class treatment solely on the basis
that it's new and people aren't using it yet.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company