Re: New partitioning - some feedback

On 2017/07/11 7:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)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.

I meant to speak of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as having partitions
(although it could be a partition itself too). If based on the relkind,
we had shown their type as "partitioned table" (not just "table"), then we
wouldn't need a separate flag/column in the \d output to distinguish
partitioned tables as being different from regular tables, as Craig seemed
to be proposing.

Since we are going the route of showing relispartition = true relations as
of different type in the \d listing (as "partition"/"foreign partition"),
we might as well go and spell RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as
"partitioned table". But, I'm afraid that it would be a much bigger
change if we don't want to restrict this terminology change to \d listing;
error messages don't bother about distinguishing "partitions"
(relispartition = true) or "partitioned tables"
(RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE), for instance.

Thanks,
Amit