On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/08/17 13:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On 2017/08/17 11:22, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Amit Langote >>>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>>>>> In the catalogs we are using full "partitioned" e.g. >>>>>> pg_partitioned_table. May >>>>>> be we should name the column as "inhchildpartitioned". >>>>> >>>>> Sure. >>>> >>>> I suggest inhpartitioned or inhispartition. inhchildpartitioned seems too >>>> long. >>> >>> inhchildpartitioned indeed seems long. >>> >>> Since we storing if the child table (one with the OID inhrelid) is >>> partitioned, inhpartitioned seems best to me. Will implement that. >> >> inhchildpartitioned is long but clearly tells that the child table is >> partitioned, not the parent. pg_inherit can have parents which are not >> partitioned, so it's better to have self-explanatory catalog name. I >> am fine with some other name as long as it's clear. > > OTOH, the pg_inherits field that stores the OID of the child table does > not mention "child" in its name (inhrelid), although you are right that > inhpartitioned can be taken to mean that the inheritance parent > (inhparent) is partitioned. In any case, system catalog documentation > which clearly states what's what might be the best guide for the confused. > Sorry, I overlooked this detail. To me it means that the table is driven by the child and inhpartitioned looks good then.
-- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
