Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Alexander Korotkov
Тема Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
Дата
Msg-id CAPpHfdsz6M1VsQ82n1wWUf22QCKgLjgzXjyURrCi2Ad-atFUkw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: psql's \d versus included-index-column feature
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:14 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

regression=# \d tbl_include_reg_idx
Index "public.tbl_include_reg_idx"
 Column |  Type   | Key | Definition
--------+---------+------------------
 c1     | integer | t   | c1
 c2     | integer | t   | c2
 c3     | integer | f   | c3
 c4     | box     | f   | c4
btree, for table "public.tbl_include_reg"

​+1 for the additional column indicating whether the column is being treated as key data or supplemental included data.​
 
+1
And especially I don't think we should place word "INCLUDE" to the definition column.

​-1 for printing a boolean t/f; would rather spell it out:

IMHO, t/f have advantage of brevity.  From my point of view, covering indexes are not so evident feature.  So, users need to spend some time reading documentation before realizing what they are and how to use them.  So, I don't expect that short designation of INCLUDE columns as "non-key" (Key == false) columns could be discouraging here.
 
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: