> That definition seems bizarre, and even less derivable
> from the term "high-level" than what I thought you meant.
> You really need some other terminology, I think.
Totally agree about the naming. There's no other terminology known to
me, but I'll definitely think about it. Of course, I'm very open to
suggestions from you or anyone else in the community.
The way we can think about the concept: these are "top" tables,
regardless of whether they have children (partitions) or not.
> (BTW, you forgot to cc the list, so nobody else saw this defense
> of your idea.)
Oops! Thanks for mentioning this. I sent the previous email to the list
as well.
Best Regards,
Sadeq Dousti
