Re: New partitioning - some feedback

On 7 July 2017 at 13:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> AIUI the user is responsible for DDL on partitions, like say creating
> indexes for them? Seems like hiding them is a bad idea given that.
> Also, we need to be careful about calling them something very separate
> from "table", because that would rouse the need to have duplicate syntax
> for every sort of ALTER TABLE and suchlike command that we want to have
> be usable with partitions. I think we've largely gone the wrong direction
> in that respect with respect to foreign tables and matviews.

Hmm, "hiding" would not be an accurate description of the proposal. I
would characterize it more as removing extraneous information, since
for a partitioned table seeing 1000 records all with roughly the same
name isn't helpful output from \d

\d would show tables but not partitions
\d <tablename> would show partitions exist and how many
\d+ would show partition details

So the information would be available, just at different levels of
detail, just as we have now for other things.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services