Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 07/07/2017 02:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> I'd prefer *not* to see a table and its partitions all intermixed in the >> same display (especially with nothing indicating which are partitions) - >> as this will

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-18 Thread Vik Fearing
On 07/07/2017 02:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > I'd prefer *not* to see a table and its partitions all intermixed in the > same display (especially with nothing indicating which are partitions) - > as this will make for unwieldy long lists when tables have many > partitions. Also it would be good

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-16 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 16/07/17 05:24, David Fetter wrote: On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote: With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-15 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already > > way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What > > should '\det!'

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote: > With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already > way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What > should '\det!' mean? What about '\dT!'? Since \det lists foreign tables, \det! would

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-13 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/13 7:23, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 12 July 2017 at 15:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Amit Langote wrote: >>> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote: However, the "list tables" command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions. >>> >>> Do you mean

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/12 23:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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 wrote: >>> > Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 12 July 2017 at 23:23, Dean Rasheed wrote: > I also agree that there probably isn't much need for a list that > *only* includes partitions, but if someone comes up with a convincing > use case, then we could add another 2-letter command for that. > Actually, I just

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 12 July 2017 at 15:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > However, the "list tables" >> > command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions. >> >> Do you mean never? Even if a modifier is specified? In

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 > >> wrote: > > > >>> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type > >>> "partitioned table", we

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-12 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/12 13:09, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> Do you see that those patches can be used in current discussion in any way? > > It wouldn't really be a bad idea to put that patch here, because there's > no special reason for it to be in the CF for PG 11,

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote: So whatever we land on needs to mention

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote: >>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and >>> has_partitions. Is that

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: > >>> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type >>> "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-11 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter 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?

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions >> >

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/11 10:34, Paul A Jungwirth wrote: >> Also, there seems to be at least some preference >> for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing. > > As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very > nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Paul A Jungwirth
> Also, there seems to be at least some preference > for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing. As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all the child tables with `\d`, so showing declarative

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/11 7:33, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Greg Stark
On 10 July 2017 at 23:46, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions >> >

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions > > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if the newly > > proposed '!'

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread David Fetter
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:15:28PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > >>> Hi Mark, > >>> > >>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter 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.

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-10 Thread Craig Ringer
On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-09 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/07/08 14:12, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote: Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again [2], where Noah

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote: Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again [2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be visible

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread David Fetter
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. :) > >

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas 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,

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 July 2017 at 13:20, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > +1. > > Or maybe just 'partition' is enough if 'partition table' would widen the > column output unnecessarily. Internally to the source code, the parent is called a "partitioned table" and the child is called a

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 July 2017 at 08:54, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote: >> >Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again >> >[2], where Noah appeared to take a

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Michael Banck
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote: > >Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again > >[2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be > >visible in views / output of commands that

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-07 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote: Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again [2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be visible in views / output of commands that list "tables". Although I too tend to prefer not filling up the \d

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-06 Thread Amit Langote
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: > >

[HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

2017-07-06 Thread Mark Kirkwood
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! My only niggle is the display of partitioned tables via \d etc. e.g: part=# \d List of relations Schema | Name