Re: New partitioning - some feedback

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New partitioning - some feedback
Date: 2017-07-08 05:12:26
Message-ID: b67ce708-31f4-0aed-ef7b-a6568b9c6eea@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
>>> [2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be
>>> visible in views / output of commands that list "tables".
>>>
>>> Although I too tend to prefer not filling up the \d output space by
>>> listing partitions (pg_class.relispartition = true relations), there
>>> wasn't perhaps enough push for creating a patch for that. If some
>>> committer is willing to consider such a patch, I can make one.
>> Yeah, me too (clearly). However if the consensus is that all these partition
>> tables *must* be shown in \d output, then I'd be happy if they were
>> identified as such rather than just 'table' (e.g 'partition table').
> +1.
>
> Or maybe just 'partition' is enough if 'partition table' would widen the
> column output unnecessarily.
>
>

Yeah, that is probably better (and 'partition table' is potentially
confusing as Robert pointed out).

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2017-07-08 05:19:38 Authentication mechanisms categorization
Previous Message Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2017-07-08 04:54:37 Re: SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II