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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jKPQZr16TBzF0O9wsOWEn5b=PCgCf=TDHKbev873QSN5A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 March 2017 at 05:29, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

> Just to confirm, you want the output to look like this
>>> \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)
>
>>
>> lowercase please
>
> Except for HAS PARTITIONS, everything is part of today's output. Given
> the current output, HAS PARTITIONS should be in upper case.

"has partitions" is not part of the DDL, whereas "FOR VALUES FROM (0)
TO (100)" is. So ISTM sensible to differentiate between DDL and
non-ddl using upper and lower case.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan