Re: [HACKERS] Partitions: \d vs \d+

On 28.09.2017 16:29, Jesper Pedersen wrote:

On 09/28/2017 09:19 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote:

E.g. "No partition constraint" vs. "Partition constraint: satisfies_hash_partition(...)".

I also noticed ambiguity in printing "No partition constraint" in non-verbose mode and "Partition constraint:..." in verbose one for partition tables regardless of the type of partition.
Attached small patch removes any output about partition constraint in non-verbose mode.

Yeah, that could be one way.

It should likely be backported to REL_10_STABLE, so the question is if we are too late in the release cycle to change that output.

I want to prepare more complete patch for "Partition constraint" output. For example, I encountered the primitive output with repetitive conjuncts for subpartition whose parent is partitioned by the same key:

Partition constraint: ((i IS NOT NULL) AND (i >= 30) AND (i < 40) AND (i IS NOT NULL) AND (i = ANY (ARRAY[30, 31])))

-- 
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin