On 7 July 2017 at 13:20, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't have a strong view on whether partitions should be hidden by >> default, although I lean slightly against it (say, -0.25). But if we >> do decide to hide them by default, then I definitely want an >> easy-to-use modifier that overrides that behavior, like being able to >> type \d! or whatever to have them included after all. > > AIUI the user is responsible for DDL on partitions, like say creating > indexes for them? Seems like hiding them is a bad idea given that. > Also, we need to be careful about calling them something very separate > from "table", because that would rouse the need to have duplicate syntax > for every sort of ALTER TABLE and suchlike command that we want to have > be usable with partitions. I think we've largely gone the wrong direction > in that respect with respect to foreign tables and matviews.
Hmm, "hiding" would not be an accurate description of the proposal. I would characterize it more as removing extraneous information, since for a partitioned table seeing 1000 records all with roughly the same name isn't helpful output from \d \d would show tables but not partitions \d <tablename> would show partitions exist and how many \d+ would show partition details So the information would be available, just at different levels of detail, just as we have now for other things. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers