On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>>> I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I >> must >>>> say this is excellent - so much nicer than the old inheritance based >> method! >>> >>> Thanks. :) >>> >>>> My only niggle is the display of partitioned tables via \d etc. e.g: >>>> >>>> part=# \d >>>> List of relations >>>> Schema | Name | Type | Owner >>>> --------+----------------------+-------+---------- >>>> public | date_fact | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_201705 | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_201706 | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_20170601 | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_2017060100 | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_201707 | table | postgres >>>> public | date_fact_rest | table | postgres >>>> (7 rows) >> >> Would showing relispartition=tru tables only in \d+ fix this? >> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers> >> > > I think so.
I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions (relispartition = true relations) and include them if the newly proposed '!' modifier is specified. The '+' modifier is being used to show additional detail of relations chosen to be listed at all, so it seemed like a bad idea to extend its meaning to also dictate whether partitions are to be listed. We have a separate 'S' modifier to ask to list system objects (which are, by default hidden), so it made sense to me to add yet another modifier (aforementioned '!') for partitions. > I'd like to add a flag of some kind to \d column output that marks a table > as having partitions, but I can't think of anything narrow enough and still > useful. Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table as having partitions. But we've avoided using that term ("partitioned table") in the error messages and such, so wouldn't perhaps be a good idea to do that here. But I wonder if we (also) want to distinguish partitioned tables from regular tables? I understood that there is some desire for partitions be distinguished when they are listed in the output, either by default or by using a modifier. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers