On 2017/04/06 16:02, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/17 2:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> Unless we can find something official, I suppose we should just
>>>> display BASE TABLE in that case as we do in other cases. I wonder if
>>>> the schema needs some broader revision; for example, are there
>>>> information_schema elements intended to show information about
>>>> partitions?
>>>
>>> Is it intentional that we show the partitions by default in \d,
>>> pg_tables, information_schema.tables? Or should we treat those as
>>> somewhat-hidden details?
>>
>> I'm not really sure what the right thing to do is there. I was hoping
>> you had an opinion.
>
> The bulk of operations that work on traditional tables also work on partitions
> and partitioned tables. The next closest kind of relation, a materialized
> view, is far less table-like. Therefore, I recommend showing both partitions
> and partitioned tables in those views. This is also consistent with the
> decision to use words like "partition" and "partitioned" in messages only when
> partitioning is relevant to the error. For example, ATWrongRelkindError()
> distinguishes materialized views from tables, but it does not distinguish
> tables based on their participation in partitioning.
+1
Thanks,
Amit
