Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > >>> 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. > >> > >> I think that is false. Whether something is partitioned and whether > >> it is a partition are independent concerns. > > > > Maybe this discussion is easier if we differentiate "list tables" (\dt, > > or \d without a pattern) from "describe table" (\d with a name pattern). > > I think this discussion has mostly focused on "list tables" so far.
Yes, which I think is a mistake, because for some things you definitely need a list of partitions of the table in question. And "describe table" can fulfill that role perfectly well, ISTM. > > It seems to me that the "describe" command should list partitions -- > > perhaps only when the + flag is given. > > That's what happens today. So no further changes needed there -- good. > > However, the "list tables" > > command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions. > > Do you mean never? Even if a modifier is specified? In the patch I > proposed, \d! (or \d+ or \d++, if '!' turns out to be unpopular) will list > partitions, but \d or \dt won't. That is, partitions are hidden by default. I don't think there is any need for a single list of all partition of all tables -- is there? I can't think of anything, but then I haven't been exposed very much to this feature yet. For now, I lean towards "never". (A different consideration is the use case of listing relation relfrozenxid/relminmxid ages, but that use case is already not fulfilled by psql metacommands so you still need custom catalog queries). I don't think \d! works terribly well as a mental model, but maybe that's just me. > > Maybe \dt should > > have some flag indicating whether each table is partitioned. > > So it seems most of us are in favor for showing partitioned tables as > "partitioned table" instead of "table" in the table listing. Yeah, that sounds good to me. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
