Re: New partitioning - some feedback

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_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.
>
> 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.

> It seems to me that the "describe" command should list partitions --
> perhaps only when the + flag is given.

That's what happens today.

> 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.

> 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.

Thanks,
Amit