On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2) Add partition to the foo; > > create table foo_p1 partition of foo for values in (1, 2, 3) partition by > list (b); > > postgres=# \d foo > Table "public.foo" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > --------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > a | integer | | | > b | integer | | | > Partition key: LIST (a) > Number of partitions: 1 (Use \d+ to list them.) > > postgres=# \d+ foo > Table "public.foo" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats target > | Description > --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+------------- > a | integer | | | | plain | > | > b | integer | | | | plain | > | > Partition key: LIST (a) > Partitions: foo_p1 FOR VALUES IN (1, 2, 3) has partitions > > Above verbose output for foo says, foo_p1 "has partitions". But if I do > > postgres=# \d foo_p1 > Table "public.foo_p1" > Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default > --------+---------+-----------+----------+--------- > a | integer | | | > b | integer | | | > Partition of: foo FOR VALUES IN (1, 2, 3) > Partition key: LIST (b) > Number of partitions: 0 > > it tell "Number of partitions: 0". > > I feel like information is conflicting with each other. AFAIU, idea about > adding > "has partitions" was to let know that it's a partitioned table. So can you > directly > add the "is partitioned" in place of "has partitions"? > > Did those change in the attached patch and update regression expected > output. >
Looks better. > Also run pgindent on the patch. > Thanks for the changes. The patch looks good to me. -- 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
