On 2017/07/11 7:33, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > wrote: >> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type >> "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table >> as having partitions. > > I think that is false. Whether something is partitioned and whether > it is a partition are independent concerns.
I meant to speak of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as having partitions (although it could be a partition itself too). If based on the relkind, we had shown their type as "partitioned table" (not just "table"), then we wouldn't need a separate flag/column in the \d output to distinguish partitioned tables as being different from regular tables, as Craig seemed to be proposing. Since we are going the route of showing relispartition = true relations as of different type in the \d listing (as "partition"/"foreign partition"), we might as well go and spell RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as "partitioned table". But, I'm afraid that it would be a much bigger change if we don't want to restrict this terminology change to \d listing; error messages don't bother about distinguishing "partitions" (relispartition = true) or "partitioned tables" (RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE), for instance. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
