On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Vik Fearing
wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 02:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> I'd prefer *not* to see a table and its partitions all intermixed in the
>> same display (especially with nothing indicating which are partitions) -
>> as this will make for unwieldy long lists wh
On 07/07/2017 02:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I'd prefer *not* to see a table and its partitions all intermixed in the
> same display (especially with nothing indicating which are partitions) -
> as this will make for unwieldy long lists when tables have many
> partitions. Also it would be good if
On 16/07/17 05:24, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote:
With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already
way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What
should
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already
> > way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What
> > should '\det!' mean? What about '\dT
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already
> way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What
> should '\det!' mean? What about '\dT!'?
Since \det lists foreign tables, \det! would list foreign tables
On 2017/07/13 7:23, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 12 July 2017 at 15:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
However, the "list tables"
command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions.
>>>
>>> Do you mean never? Even if a modifier
On 2017/07/12 23:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>>
> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type
> "partitioned ta
On 12 July 2017 at 23:23, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I also agree that there probably isn't much need for a list that
> *only* includes partitions, but if someone comes up with a convincing
> use case, then we could add another 2-letter command for that.
>
Actually, I just thought of a round-about sor
On 12 July 2017 at 15:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > However, the "list tables"
>> > command \dt should definitely IMO not list partitions.
>>
>> Do you mean never? Even if a modifier is specified? In the patch I
>> proposed, \d
Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type
> >>> "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for ma
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> So whatever we land on needs
On 2017/07/12 13:09, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> 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
On 2017/07/12 12:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
has_partitions. Is that la
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>> So whatever we land on needs to mention partition_of and
>>> has_partitions. Is that latter just its immediate partitions?
>>> Recursion a
On 2017/07/11 13:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
>> 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 partit
On 2017/07/11 18:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter 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 patc
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions
>> > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if t
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
> 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 someth
On 2017/07/11 10:34, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
>> Also, there seems to be at least some preference
>> for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing.
>
> As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very
> nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all t
> Also, there seems to be at least some preference
> for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing.
As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very
nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all the
child tables with `\d`, so showing declarative par
On 2017/07/11 7:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
> 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
On 10 July 2017 at 23:46, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions
>> > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if the newl
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions
> > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if the newly
> > proposed '!' modifier is specified. The '+' mo
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions (relispartition =
> true relations) and include them if the newly proposed '!' modifier is
> specified. The '+' modifier is being used to show additional detail of
> relations chosen to
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:15:28PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>>
> >>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >>
On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I
>> must
On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > > I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I
> must
> > > say this is excellent - so much nicer t
On 2017/07/08 14:12, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
[2], where Noah appear
On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
[2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be
visible in
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I must
> > say this is excellent - so much nicer than the old inheritance based method!
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> >
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> 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 mod
On 7 July 2017 at 13:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> 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 t
Robert Haas writes:
> 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
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Michael Banck 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 shoul
On 7 July 2017 at 08:54, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>> >Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
>> >[2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions shoul
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
> >Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
> >[2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be
> >visible in views / output of commands that l
On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
[2], where Noah appeared to take a stance that partitions should be
visible in views / output of commands that list "tables".
Although I too tend to prefer not filling up the \d out
Hi Mark,
On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I must
> say this is excellent - so much nicer than the old inheritance based method!
Thanks. :)
> My only niggle is the display of partitioned tables via \d etc. e.g:
>
> part=#
I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I must
say this is excellent - so much nicer than the old inheritance based method!
My only niggle is the display of partitioned tables via \d etc. e.g:
part=# \d
List of relations
Schema | Name |
39 matches
Mail list logo
