Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF4Wf-0006GX-T5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:38:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF4We-000822-Jy for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:38:08 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF4We-00081t-B2 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:38:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pF4Wb-0000hn-UI for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:38:07 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30A2c3KT191820; Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:38:03 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: ATTACH PARTITION seems to ignore column generation status In-reply-to: References: <2793383.1672944799@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3016779.1673026372@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44978.1673300465@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote message dated "Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:30:16 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <191818.1673318283.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 21:38:03 -0500 Message-ID: <191819.1673318283@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Amit Langote writes: > Thanks for the patch. It looks good, though I guess you said that we > should also change the error message that CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION > OF emits to match the other cases while we're here. I've attached a > delta patch. Thanks. I hadn't touched that issue because I wasn't entirely sure which error message(s) you were unhappy with. These changes look fine offhand. regards, tom lane