Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f1XGk-0004yE-KQ for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:07:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f1XGj-0001sZ-9q for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:07:05 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f1XGi-0001sM-Si for pgadmin-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:07:05 +0000 Received: from mail-ot0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::244]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f1XGf-00053q-DT for pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:07:03 +0000 Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id i28-v6so6321991otf.8 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=enterprisedb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dDJPohZMiXNplXcQZkYLAZWFTcepVXt6u11MIIcH0AE=; b=vDvRhc62hmd2YN4Jt3IHcoWAJaE40nWbZmoF9QUj/nwfAE0f6nCBwYcd+b9qtBlSdl MPGkqPhKJcFa3Zx86vGrf0p1ZXgr7hBqBmyU1PkywulhHLdS1WPDttDoTnGC62MX7Bp9 5kanzGGvisnUCyjw/lfi8vrYVt8eOADYbneURaDpQanbA+Fjfgsc97v0HKmuUKBh4rEB tgM3h0dzeVQFsAxz1VqG8kN3UT3FFtkoJxcIfncDK13UYpcCg3Bg+HUQ7NiSIWRv9NQP VVPvxuvgC5TCjhAlOuvBHas+gYyluVmwjzzKs8zAMaFxaXF9RknQSI2vnZqmB1M8Q2Du LW3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dDJPohZMiXNplXcQZkYLAZWFTcepVXt6u11MIIcH0AE=; b=iS2saSvycp/rvKIzEYjoJS+zW3YlhfEQ6qqCGMu33AL1zR/H6b4zC/lCA4s+jtV+Bb ThtoDyLmpm17Vufhe9nhz7VrLUd2q7iqAe2OTOWh7Gt7Uq3cSu9ri2/bw1aVvPurSftp 4A/EY5AoWs+jvjwGuE8NIf7gIo+naFosPIHQsBexWVJb4d8mmGlaMBOeoKOSyBIVPfR7 h8xnGzUhJpNedzjOC1eTQJXYsArQRqDErjHrEZCYZkwk26e4PnV04HmYOiHipa8uOlkr R1QVlFXUHPUsAMBPayQTYIjKYeRtLTJ8dRqES2HS1uuw0jFyAUsrUNHTyd4gRZpMsyf2 sSTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FA8HR8wxY3JaLBrvllXqReanE5O/fhvf0zeqgqD590EBAxIUue 4eB7VPPB2G+IUcck4dTZuP4OnxvmDl2GQUrpzXir7g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+EGLhu1RGwwZeHeZaoOnQeeTCT4iUPysYfHeSspEQYToIYKA8dzVLeP2tcVB/jZf4DNoj3v1djkxh12m3OtG0= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5904:: with SMTP id t4-v6mr1377160oth.284.1522328820346; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.138.6.138 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:06:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Murtuza Zabuawala Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:36:40 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]: RM #3180 Index node is missing from the tree view of the table node To: Akshay Joshi Cc: pgadmin-hackers Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009187f605688ccc9d" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --0000000000009187f605688ccc9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Akshay, I have concerns regarding the fix, As you negate the condition, Before the fix it was not displaying Index node for Tables but after the fix it will not display it for Partition tables. But when I read the Postgres docs it say, *Partitions may themselves be defined as partitioned tables, using what is called sub-partitioning. Partitions may have their own indexes, constraints and default values, distinct from those of other partitions. Indexes must be created separately for each partition. See CREATE TABLE for more details on creating partitioned tables and partitions.* Ref: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html (Sec: 5.10.2) -- Regards, Murtuza Zabuawala EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Akshay Joshi wrote: > Hi Hackers, > > Please find the attached patch to fix RM #3180 Index node is missing from > the tree view of the table node. This is a regression of one of the older > commit. > > -- > *Akshay Joshi* > > *Sr. Software Architect * > > > > *Phone: +91 20-3058-9517Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* > --0000000000009187f605688ccc9d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Akshay,

I have concerns regarding the fix, As you negate the condition= , Before the fix it was not displaying Index node for Tables but after the = fix it will not display it for Partition tables.
But wh= en I read the Postgres docs it say,
Partitions may themselves be defined as partitioned tables, using what is= called=C2=A0sub-partitioning. Partitions m= ay have their own indexes, constraints and default values, distinct from those of other pa= rtitions. Indexes must be create= d separately for each partition. See=C2=A0CREATE TABLE=C2=A0for more details on creating partitio= ned tables and partitions.
Ref:=C2=A0ht= tps://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html (Sec: 5.1= 0.2)



--=
Regards,
Murtuza Zabuawala
EnterpriseDB:=C2=A0http://www.enter= prisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
=

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Akshay Josh= i <akshay.joshi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi H= ackers,

Please find the attached p= atch to fix RM=C2=A0#3180=C2=A0Index node is missing from the tree view of the = table node. This is a regression of one of the older commit.

--
Akshay = Joshi
Sr. Software Architect


Phone: +91 20-3058-9517
Mobile: +91 97= 6-788-8246

--0000000000009187f605688ccc9d--