On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:01 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Based on a quick skim of the thread - which means I most definitely
> > missed things - there's not been discussion of why we actually want to
> > add this. Who's the prospective user of this facility? And why wouldn't
> > they just query pg_am[proc]? None of this information seems like it's
> > going to be even remotely targeted towards even advanced users. For
> > developers it's not clear what these add?
>
> I see your point regarding pg_am details. Probably nobody expect
> developers need this. And probably even developers don't need this,
> because it's easier to see IndexAmRoutine directly with more details.
> So, +1 for removing this.
>
> pg_amproc for gin/gist/sp-gist/brin is probably for developers. But I
> think pg_amproc for btree/hash could be useful for advanced users.
> btree/hash opclasses could be written by advanced users using
> pl/something, I've faced that several times.
Revised patch is attached. Changes to \dA+ command are reverted. It
also contains some minor improvements.
Second patch looks problematic for me, because it provides index
description alternative to \d+. IMHO, if there is something really
useful to display about index, we should keep it in \d+. So, I
propose to postpone this.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company