On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
>>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
>>> has_partitions. Is that latter just its immediate partitions?
>>> Recursion all the way down? Somewhere in between?
>> We have patches proposed to address some of those concerns at 
> ISTM, David is talking about the "list tables" (bare \d without any
> pattern) case. That is, listing partitioned tables as of type
> "partitioned table" instead of "table" as we currently do. The linked
> patch, OTOH, is for "describe table" (\d <object_name_pattern>) case.
Right, the patches don't exactly do what David is suggesting, but
those I believe have code to annotate the tables with "has partitions"
and also the number of partitions (I guess). Although, that thread has
died some time ago, so my memory can be vague.
Do you see that those patches can be used in current discussion in any way?
The Postgres Database Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: