On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@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_f8@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 <david@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_SpB5DQZOJgjerA@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