On 2017/01/26 3:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is there.  I was hoping
> you had an opinion.

I guess this is an open item then.  I think Greg Stark brought this up too
on the original partitioning thread [1].



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to