From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>, jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitions: \d vs \d+ |
Date: | 2017-09-29 01:33:11 |
Message-ID: | 78fbdeff-6956-65c0-c608-eb47a77698ec@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/09/28 22:19, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> I also noticed ambiguity in printing "No partition constraint" in
> non-verbose mode and "Partition constraint:..." in verbose one for
> partition tables regardless of the type of partition.
> Attached small patch removes any output about partition constraint in
> non-verbose mode.
Patch looks good.
So, we should be looking at partconstraintdef only when verbose is true,
because that's only when we set it to a valid value. Now, if
partconstraintdef is NULL even after verbose is true, that means backend
returned that there exists no constraint for that partition, which I
thought would be true for a default partition (because the commit that
introduced default partitions also introduced "No partition constraint"),
but it's really not.
For example, \d and \d+ show contradictory outputs for a default partition.
create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
create table pd partition of p default;
\d pd
Table "public.pd"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
a | integer | | |
Partition of: p DEFAULT
No partition constraint
\d+ pd
Table "public.pd"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats
target | Description
--------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+-------------
a | integer | | | | plain | |
Partition of: p DEFAULT
Partition constraint: (NOT ((a IS NOT NULL) AND (a = ANY (ARRAY[1]))))
Perhaps, there is no case when "No partition constraint" should be output,
but I may be missing something.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-29 01:44:19 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-09-29 01:23:28 | Re: Partitions: \d vs \d+ |