| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE |
| Date: | 2017-03-06 00:51:17 |
| Message-ID: | 299e7d69-6c2b-3873-30c4-fa6a63814213@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/03/05 16:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I notice also that
> \d+ <tablename>
> does not show which partitions have subpartitions.
Do you mean showing just whether a partition is itself partitioned or
showing its partitions and so on (because those partitions may themselves
be partitioned)? Maybe, we could do the former.
> I'm worried that these things illustrate something about the catalog
> representation that we may need to improve, but I don't have anything
> concrete to say on that at present.
Perhaps. As Ashutosh said though, it does not seem like a big problem in
this particular case.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Higuchi, Daisuke | 2017-03-06 01:27:09 | Re: Re: new high availability feature for the system with both asynchronous and synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-06 00:14:03 | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |