Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 6 March 2017 at 04:00, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 6 March 2017 at 00:51, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/05 16:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> I notice also that
>>>>   \d+ <tablename>
>>>> does not show which partitions have subpartitions.
>>>
>>> Do you mean showing just whether a partition is itself partitioned or
>>> showing its partitions and so on (because those partitions may themselves
>>> be partitioned)?  Maybe, we could do the former.
>>
>> I think \d+ should show the full information, in some form.
>
> For a multi-level inheritance hierarchy, we don't show children which
> are further inherited. Same behaviour has been carried over to
> partitioning. I don't say that that's good or bad.
>
> Given the recursive structure of partitioned tables, it looks readable
> and manageable to print only the direct partitions in \d+. May be we
> want to indicate the partitions that are further partitioned. If user
> wants information about partitioned partitions, s/he can execute \d+
> on the partition, repeating this process to any desired level. This
> would work well in the interactive mode, keeping the output of \d+
> manageable. Further someone writing a script to consume \d+ output of
> a multi-level partitioned table, can code the above process in a
> script.
>
> Thinking about how to display partition which are further partitioned,
> there are two options. Assume a partitioned table t1 with partitions
> t1p1, which is further partitioned and t1p2. One could display \d+ t1
> as
>
> \d+ t1
>                                     Table "public.t1"
>  Column |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats
> target | Description
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+-------------
>  a      | integer |           | not null |         | plain   |              |
> Partition key: RANGE (a)
> Partitions: t1p1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100), HAS PARTITIONS
>             t1p2 FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200)
>
> OR
>
> \d+ t1
>                                     Table "public.t1"
>  Column |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats
> target | Description
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+-------------
>  a      | integer |           | not null |         | plain   |              |
> Partition key: RANGE (a)
> Partitions: t1p1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100), PARTITION BY LIST(a)
>             t1p2 FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200)
>
> To me the first option looks fine.

+1

lowercase please

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services