Re: New partitioning - some feedback

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> 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 "partition". I think we should not
use the term "partition table" because I think it could create
confusion as to which of those two things we're talking about. It
would be reasonable to write "partition" rather than "table" for
partitions, though. We'd probably also need "partition index" (for
indexes on partition) and "foreign partition" (for foreign tables that
are partitions).

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 behavior, like being able to
type \d! or whatever to have them included after all.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company