On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
