On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:17:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> To be certain I'm not going against some old decision, I digged up
> Amit's old patches. Turns out he submitted psql's describe.c using the
> term "partitioned table" on August 10th [1] and then based on a
> discussion where Robert suggested calling these new objects "partition
> roots" instead to avoid confusion, it was changed to "table" in the next
> submission on August 26th [2]. It seems the right call to have used the
> term "table" in many places (rather than "partition roots"), but at
> least in psql's \dt it seems extremely useful to show the type as
> "partitioned table" instead, because it is one place where the
> distinction is clearly useful.
+1.
> In this thread there have been no contrary votes, so I'm pushing this
> part soon.
>
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/ad16e2f5-fc7c-cc2d-333a-88d4aa446f96@lab.ntt.co.jp
> [2] https://postgr.es/m/169708f6-6e5a-18d1-707b-1b323e4a6baf@lab.ntt.co.jp
Sorry for degressing, but could you also update \di at the same time so
as it shows "partitioned index"? listTables() should be switched to use
partitioned tables and partitioned indexes, and permissionsList() has a
reference to partitioned tables. While on it, this gives the attached..
--
Michael