On 2017/01/26 3:19, 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.
I guess this is an open item then. I think Greg Stark brought this up too
on the original partitioning thread [1].
Thanks,
Amit
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM-w4HOZ5fPS7GoCTTrW42q01%2BwPrOWFCnr9H0iDyVTZP2H1CA%40mail.gmail.com
