On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> I think the proposal is "don't mention the property if it has the
> default value". That's not second-class status, as long as people
> who know what the property is understand that behavior. It's just
> conserving screen space.
One thing that concerns me is that replica identity has a different
default for system tables (NOTHING) than for other tables (DEFAULT).
So when we say we're not going to display the default value, are we
going to display it when it's not NOTHING, when it's not DEFAULT, or
when it's not the actual default for that particular kind of table?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company