Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Date: 2017-03-06 05:42:22
Message-ID: CAFjFpRcpRtCysZq-60SKntqjQbK1b4PRM3zHF+vaiMEV_3VALg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6 March 2017 at 05:29, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Just to confirm, you want the output to look like this
>>>> \d+ t1
>>>> Table "public.t1"
>>>> Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats
>>>> target | Description
>>>> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+-------------
>>>> a | integer | | not null | | plain | |
>>>> Partition key: RANGE (a)
>>>> Partitions: t1p1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100), HAS PARTITIONS
>>>> t1p2 FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200)
>>
>>>
>>> lowercase please
>>
>> Except for HAS PARTITIONS, everything is part of today's output. Given
>> the current output, HAS PARTITIONS should be in upper case.
>
> "has partitions" is not part of the DDL, whereas "FOR VALUES FROM (0)
> TO (100)" is. So ISTM sensible to differentiate between DDL and
> non-ddl using upper and lower case.
>

Make sense. Will try to cook up a patch soon.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-03-06 05:50:28 Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2017-03-06 05:35:45 Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan