Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ce38T-0007F2-Rt for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:12:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ce38T-0002Sf-Ea for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:12:57 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ce371-0005QM-O2 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:11:27 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ce36z-0007xN-5n for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:11:27 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1FHBIH2016560; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:11:18 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Robert Haas , "Joshua D. Drake" , Simon Riggs , Amit Langote , Corey Huinker , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning In-reply-to: <20170215163411.7ozquqahgf64lvui@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20170215163411.7ozquqahgf64lvui@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:34:11 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <16558.1487178678.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <16559.1487178678@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the dependency >> between a partitioned table and a partition of that table as >> DEPENDENCY_NORMAL or as DEPENDENCY_AUTO? With table inheritance, it's >> always been "normal" and I'm not sure there's any good reason for >> partitioning to make the opposite decision. > I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as > an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate > partitions separately does not really mean that they are their own > independent object. You don't stop to think "do I really want to drop > the TOAST table attached to this main table?" and attach a CASCADE > clause if so. You just drop the main table, and the toast one is > dropped automatically. I think new-style partitions should behave > equivalently. I agree with Alvaro's position. If you need CASCADE to get rid of the individual partitions, that's going to be a serious usability fail. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers