From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Set pg_class.relhassubclass for partitioned indexes
In-reply-to: <20181022031212.GF14282@paquier.xyz>
References: <E1gEPd3-0007fj-6U@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <82470.1540177167@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20181022031212.GF14282@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:12:12 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <82548.1540178404.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 23:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <82549.1540178404@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:59:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems like this commit should have touched the catalogs.sgml description
>> for that column, as well as the pg_class.h comment for it.  Neither of
>> those are worded in a way that suggests it could be set for non-table
>> relations.

> The pg_class.h comment looked fine for me first.  How would you reword
> it?

Well, the question is what "derived class" means, but I'd tend to think
it means something that has an associated composite type; which indexes
do not.  So maybe instead of "has (or has had) derived classes", we could
write "has (or has had) child tables or indexes"?  I'm not wedded to
particular wording for this, but I think what's there now is a bit
misleading.

> relispartition tells "True if table is a partition", which is not
> actually true as it can apply to indexes.  So this should be changed in
> v11 as well, no?

Good point, that column's description is obsolete as well.

			regards, tom lane