From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New partitioning - some feedback |
Date: | 2017-07-11 04:34:44 |
Message-ID: | 20170711043444.jgvrtvr6canuvuow@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type
> > "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table
> > as having partitions.
>
> I think that is false. Whether something is partitioned and whether
> it is a partition are independent concerns.
Maybe this discussion is easier if we differentiate "list tables" (\dt,
or \d without a pattern) from "describe table" (\d with a name pattern).
It seems to me that the "describe" command should list partitions --
perhaps only when the + flag is given. However, the "list tables"
command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions. Maybe \dt should
have some flag indicating whether each table is partitioned.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-07-11 04:51:09 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-07-11 03:32:30 | why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |