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 . Thanks, Amit  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM-w4HOZ5fPS7GoCTTrW42q01%2BwPrOWFCnr9H0iDyVTZP2H1CA%40mail.gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers