On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >>>>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and >>>>> has_partitions. Is that latter just its immediate partitions? >>>>> Recursion all the way down? Somewhere in between? >>>>> >>>> >>>> We have patches proposed to address some of those concerns at [1] >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRcs5fOSfaAGAjT5C6=yvdd7mrx3knf_spb5dqzojgj...@mail.gmail.com >>> >>> ISTM, David is talking about the "list tables" (bare \d without any >>> pattern) case. That is, listing partitioned tables as of type >>> "partitioned table" instead of "table" as we currently do. The linked >>> patch, OTOH, is for "describe table" (\d <object_name_pattern>) case. >> >> Right, the patches don't exactly do what David is suggesting, but >> those I believe have code to annotate the tables with "has partitions" >> and also the number of partitions (I guess). Although, that thread has >> died some time ago, so my memory can be vague. >> >> Do you see that those patches can be used in current discussion in any way? > > It wouldn't really be a bad idea to put that patch here, because there's > no special reason for it to be in the CF for PG 11, if we are talking here > about changing \d command outputs anyway.
Thanks. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
