Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

Added this to 2017/7 commitfest to keep a track of it.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/03/08 18:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>
>>> About the other statement you changed, I just realized that we should
>>> perhaps do one more thing.  Show the Number of partitions, even if it's 0.
>>>  In case of inheritance, the parent table stands on its own when there are
>>> no child tables, but a partitioned table doesn't in the same sense.  I
>>> tried to implement that in attached patch 0002.  Example below:
>>>
>>> create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
>>> \d p
>>> <snip>
>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>> Number of partitions: 0
>>>
>>> \d+ p
>>> <snip>
>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>> Number of partitions: 0
>>>
>>> create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
>>> \d p
>>> <snip>
>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>> Number of partitions: 1 (Use \d+ to list them.)
>>>
>>> \d+ p
>>> <snip>
>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>> Partitions: p1 FOR VALUES IN (1)
>>
>> I liked that. PFA 0002 updated. I changed one of \d output to \d+ to
>> better test partitioned tables without partitions in verbose and
>> non-verbose mode. Also, refactored the your code to have less number
>> of conditions. Please let me know if it looks good.
>
> Thanks, looks good.
>
> Regards,
> Amit
>
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company