Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:12:51 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
	Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table
Message-ID: <20170410141251.GJ9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <7682253a-6f79-6a92-00aa-267c4c412870@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoYAWqUukz-Q6GOnv=D82bokRbsohYrRj_gJYkwBBz79-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9599c3b3-87d4-39d1-1f75-d205a726b863@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoYpVps0dH_Nj7At5yonKJZ-Qzezq4Z_3ZnYLPwZgGgBZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9c6a9a7d-684f-bb8b-b972-ee20445a9e6d@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20170409235057.GA2842536@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <CA+Tgmoba3SDoSyPJ5b4-n1S8fd+_vhKmKBpfwUenH_+=PUgQDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7227.1491790247@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="p6fmkdvISEIMzV30"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7227.1491790247@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--p6fmkdvISEIMzV30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom, Robert,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I would appreciate help from other contributors and committers on this
> > open item; pg_dump is not my strong point.  In the absence of such
> > help, I will do my best with it.  I will set aside time this week to
> > study this and send another update no later than Thursday.
>=20
> The proposed patch seems rather ad-hoc, and I think that it is working
> around a backend behavior that might be broken.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the proposed patch either.

> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole
> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written
> down specification about (a) how much partition member tables are allowed
> to deviate schema-wise from their parent, and (b) how DDL semantics on
> partitioned tables differ from DDL semantics for traditional inheritance.
> Obviously those are closely related questions.  But the fact that this
> bug exists at all shows that there's been some lack of clarity on (b),
> and so I wonder whether we have any clarity on (a) either.

Right.  I thought I had understood that partition child tables really
can't deviate from the parent table in terms of columns or constraints
but might be allowed to differ with regard to indexes (?).

I'll try looking into this also, I should be able to spend some time on
it this week.

Thanks!

Stephen

--p6fmkdvISEIMzV30
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=zeNb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--p6fmkdvISEIMzV30--