| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2017-07-10 22:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2pU8xdqvemjCbSCxM2a4Dqw8cTKsRVaf-FW4kKJ0k5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions (relispartition =
> true relations) and include them if the newly proposed '!' modifier is
> specified. The '+' modifier is being used to show additional detail of
> relations chosen to be listed at all, so it seemed like a bad idea to
> extend its meaning to also dictate whether partitions are to be listed.
+1. That'd be a mess.
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-07-10 22:46:02 | Re: New partitioning - some feedback |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-10 21:56:09 | Re: Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions |