Re: Declarative partitioning vs. information_schema

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, 高增琦 <pgf00a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning vs. information_schema
Date: 2017-01-25 18:19:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYrA8SK=KjkVbvKt8hG3Cqsjr-Hnmwa3WXqbziRuwKBLg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/18/17 2:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Unless we can find something official, I suppose we should just
>> display BASE TABLE in that case as we do in other cases. I wonder if
>> the schema needs some broader revision; for example, are there
>> information_schema elements intended to show information about
>> partitions?
>
> Is it intentional that we show the partitions by default in \d,
> pg_tables, information_schema.tables? Or should we treat those as
> somewhat-hidden details?

I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is there. I was hoping
you had an opinion.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2017-01-25 18:23:53 Re: COPY as a set returning function
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-25 18:18:25 Re: Checksums by default?