| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, 高增琦 <pgf00a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(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>, 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 vs. information_schema |
| Date: | 2017-04-06 07:14:13 |
| Message-ID: | 238c23ab-97c8-682a-2db3-73bf9ba84fbc@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/04/06 16:02, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/17 2:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> Unless we can find something official, I suppose we should just
>>>> display BASE TABLE in that case as we do in other cases. I wonder if
>>>> the schema needs some broader revision; for example, are there
>>>> information_schema elements intended to show information about
>>>> partitions?
>>>
>>> Is it intentional that we show the partitions by default in \d,
>>> pg_tables, information_schema.tables? Or should we treat those as
>>> somewhat-hidden details?
>>
>> I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is there. I was hoping
>> you had an opinion.
>
> The bulk of operations that work on traditional tables also work on partitions
> and partitioned tables. The next closest kind of relation, a materialized
> view, is far less table-like. Therefore, I recommend showing both partitions
> and partitioned tables in those views. This is also consistent with the
> decision to use words like "partition" and "partitioned" in messages only when
> partitioning is relevant to the error. For example, ATWrongRelkindError()
> distinguishes materialized views from tables, but it does not distinguish
> tables based on their participation in partitioning.
+1
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-06 07:15:33 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-04-06 07:08:44 | Duplicate usage of tablespace location? |