From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:35:35 +0900
Message-ID: <4477eb97-e898-b8fe-51ea-1459fddc6c81@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171103123900.7xxc532ka4o34i4a@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20171103123900.7xxc532ka4o34i4a@alvherre.pgsql>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2017/11/03 21:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>>> I think adding "is partitioned" at end of line isn't good; looks like a
>>> phrase but isn't translatable. Maybe add keyword PARTITIONED instead?
>>
>> In that case may be we should separate bounds and "PARTITIONED" with a
>> ",". "part_default DEFAULT, PARTITIONED" would read better than
>> "part_default DEFAULT PARTITIONED"?
>
> Hmm, I vote +0.5 for the comma.
Me too.
>>> Is it possible to put it at either start or end of the list?
>>
>> Right now, we could do that if we order the list by bound expression;
>> lexically DEFAULT would come before FOR VALUES ... . But that's not
>> future-safe; we may have a bound expression starting with A, B or C.
>> Beyond that it really gets tricky to order the partitions by bounds.
>
> I was just thinking in changing the query to be "order by
> is_the_default_partition, partition_name" instead of just "order by
> partition_name". Sorting by bounds rather than name (a feature whose
> worth should definitely be discussed separately IMV) sounds a lot more
> complicated.
Yeah, it sounds like a desirable feature, but as you both say, should be
discussed separately. Since the facility to order partitions in the bound
order is internal to the server yet, we'd need some new server-side
functionality to expose the same with sane SQL-callable interface, which
clearly needs its own separate discussion.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com, rushabh.lathia@gmail.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
In-Reply-To: <4477eb97-e898-b8fe-51ea-1459fddc6c81@lab.ntt.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox