Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cxOog-0005yv-2T for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:12:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cxOof-0001cd-K0 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:12:29 +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 1cxOnA-0007M0-MO for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:10:56 +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 1cxOn7-0006Zv-LH for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:10:56 +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 v3A2Alul007228; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 22:10:47 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Noah Misch , Amit Langote , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table In-reply-to: References: <7682253a-6f79-6a92-00aa-267c4c412870@lab.ntt.co.jp> <9599c3b3-87d4-39d1-1f75-d205a726b863@lab.ntt.co.jp> <9c6a9a7d-684f-bb8b-b972-ee20445a9e6d@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20170409235057.GA2842536@tornado.leadboat.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Sun, 09 Apr 2017 21:24:19 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7226.1491790247.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 22:10:47 -0400 Message-ID: <7227.1491790247@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 Robert Haas 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. The proposed patch seems rather ad-hoc, and I think that it is working around a backend behavior that might be broken. 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. 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