Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2016-12-16 08:58:04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/12/16 17:38, Greg Stark wrote:
> Just poking around with partitioning. I notice that "\d parent"
> doesn't list all the partitions, suggesting to use \d+ but a plain
> "\d" does indeed list the partitions. That seems a bit strange and
> also probably impractical if you have hundreds or thousands of
> partitions. Has this come up in previous discussions? Unfortunately
> it's proving a bit hard to search for "\d" :/

Do you mean a plain "\d" (without an argument) should not list tables that
are partitions? I think that might be preferable. That would mean, we
list only the root partitioned tables with a plain "\d".

Regarding "\d parent", it does the same thing as regular inheritance, but
using the term "partition" instead of "child table". Without specifying a
+ (\d parent), one gets just "Number of partitions: # (Use \d+ to list
them.)" and with + (\d+ parent), one gets the full list of partitions
showing the partition bound with each.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2016-12-16 09:04:20 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-12-16 08:42:54 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take