On 6 March 2017 at 04:00, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 6 March 2017 at 00:51, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On 2017/03/05 16:20, Simon Riggs wrote: >>>> I notice also that >>>> \d+ <tablename> >>>> does not show which partitions have subpartitions. >>> >>> Do you mean showing just whether a partition is itself partitioned or >>> showing its partitions and so on (because those partitions may themselves >>> be partitioned)? Maybe, we could do the former. >> >> I think \d+ should show the full information, in some form. > > For a multi-level inheritance hierarchy, we don't show children which > are further inherited. Same behaviour has been carried over to > partitioning. I don't say that that's good or bad. > > Given the recursive structure of partitioned tables, it looks readable > and manageable to print only the direct partitions in \d+. May be we > want to indicate the partitions that are further partitioned. If user > wants information about partitioned partitions, s/he can execute \d+ > on the partition, repeating this process to any desired level. This > would work well in the interactive mode, keeping the output of \d+ > manageable. Further someone writing a script to consume \d+ output of > a multi-level partitioned table, can code the above process in a > script. > > Thinking about how to display partition which are further partitioned, > there are two options. Assume a partitioned table t1 with partitions > t1p1, which is further partitioned and t1p2. One could display \d+ t1 > as > > \d+ t1 > Table "public.t1" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats > target | Description > --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+------------- > a | integer | | not null | | plain | | > Partition key: RANGE (a) > Partitions: t1p1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100), HAS PARTITIONS > t1p2 FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200) > > OR > > \d+ t1 > Table "public.t1" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats > target | Description > --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+------------- > a | integer | | not null | | plain | | > Partition key: RANGE (a) > Partitions: t1p1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100), PARTITION BY LIST(a) > t1p2 FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200) > > To me the first option looks fine.
+1 lowercase please -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
