Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c88d5ad3-828f-f28b-e2cf-29a18adddfe6@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 16/07/17 05:24, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: >>> With utmost respect, it's less messy than adding '!' to the already >>> way too random and mysterious syntax of psql's \ commands. What >>> should '\det!' mean? What about '\dT!'? >> Since \det lists foreign tables, \det! would list foreign tables even >> if they are partitions. Plain \det would show only the ones that are >> not partitions. >> >> \dT! wouldn't be meaningful, since \dT lists data types and data types >> can't be partitions. If you're trying to conjure up a rule that every >> \d<something> command must accept the same set of modifiers, a quick >> look at the output of \? and a little experimentation will quickly >> show you that neither S nor + apply to all command types, so I see no >> reason why that would need to be true for a new modifier either. >> >> TBH, I think we should just leave this well enough alone. We're >> post-beta2 now, there's no clear consensus on what to do here, and >> there will be very little opportunity for users to give us feedback if >> we stick a change into an August beta3 before a September final >> release. > I think a new modifier would be too rushed at this stage, but there's > no reason to throw out the progress on \d vs \dt. > > +1 And similarly, there seemed to be a reasonably clear push to label the 'partitions' as such. regards Mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: