From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New partitioning - some feedback |
Date: | 2017-07-08 05:12:26 |
Message-ID: | b67ce708-31f4-0aed-ef7b-a6568b9c6eea@catalyst.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
>>> [2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be
>>> visible in views / output of commands that list "tables".
>>>
>>> Although I too tend to prefer not filling up the \d output space by
>>> listing partitions (pg_class.relispartition = true relations), there
>>> wasn't perhaps enough push for creating a patch for that. If some
>>> committer is willing to consider such a patch, I can make one.
>> Yeah, me too (clearly). However if the consensus is that all these partition
>> tables *must* be shown in \d output, then I'd be happy if they were
>> identified as such rather than just 'table' (e.g 'partition table').
> +1.
>
> Or maybe just 'partition' is enough if 'partition table' would widen the
> column output unnecessarily.
>
>
Yeah, that is probably better (and 'partition table' is potentially
confusing as Robert pointed out).
Cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-07-08 05:19:38 | Authentication mechanisms categorization |
Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-07-08 04:54:37 | Re: SCRAM auth and Pgpool-II |