| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2017-01-25 18:04:42 |
| Message-ID: | a6e16241-8008-bec6-8254-1f0f8cb24be6@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-01-25 18:10:39 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-25 17:58:30 | Re: Checksums by default? |