The huge (often thousands sometimes tens of thousands) number of partitions makes rendering all of the partitions painfully slow and frequently not useful.
Perhaps, though I doubt that number would be common in Postgres. The problem though, is that there are both stats and sub-objects (indexes and triggers for example) that are part of the child partitions, not the parent - and they may differ from partition to partition.
Certainly there differences in Postgres and Greenplum and this might very well be one of those places.
I don't see that we have any choice but to display them so users can work with them.
We don't want to hide them, I do think we want to make accessing them a useful experience. If we rephrase this statement as "How might we display partitioned tables so that users are able to work with and modify the pieces they need?", this opens us up to different opportunities in how we display them.
Even with a simple case of 90 days of data partitioned by day, a drop down showing 90 tables that are all mostly the same is a little overwhelming.
When end users are interested in looking at their partitions they frequently don't want all of them displayed mindlessly
They are looking at a subset of partitions
Partitions are typically grouped around their inheritance properties.
How might you propose grouping them (based on the way they work in Postgres)?
Honestly I'm not sure. We didn't really start thinking about this until the other day so we are starting to look into the pains that Greenplum customers have. Sharing that pain we discover back to the pgAdmin community and seeing if it makes sense from a Postgres perspective. After that I need to dive into the Postgres implementation.
