public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
Cc: Dmitry Koval <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:20:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+TgmoYcjL+w2BQzku5iNXKR5fyxJMSP3avQta8xngioTX7D7A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdv1ZkY9cPOqsLvDY9AA-fCYKHM4P07+-Mu+xq5o=daS6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfduNYkMVuUSxZjD6u4tZG6aKdhgQcmhr-K9OQfeg56MNww@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtj7YsPaASoVPN+N3H4_Ct+kQw8QY1d_9u7FPnbghkicw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHewXNkGMPU50QG7V6Q60JGFORfo8LfYO1_GCkCa0VWbmB-fEw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtTgSdbzfcEz_mgVxh8VSDP=VfQ6r4T1n9SMT_impbDiA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAMbWs49c_7dT_oiP729b-JPRiDtTuDca3exN_cOZZwjGG-0bMA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdv1ZkY9cPOqsLvDY9AA-fCYKHM4P07+-Mu+xq5o=daS6w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:54 PM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think we shouldn't unconditionally copy schema name and
> relpersistence from the parent table. Instead we should throw the
> error on a mismatch like CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF ... does. I'm
> working on revising this fix.
We definitely shouldn't copy the schema name from the parent table. It
should be possible to schema-qualify the new partition names, and if
you don't, then the search_path should determine where they get
placed.
But I am inclined to think that relpersistence should be copied. It's
weird that you split an unlogged partition and you get logged
partitions.
One of the things I dislike about this type of feature -- not this
implementation specifically, but just this kind of idea in general --
is that the syntax mentions a whole bunch of tables but in a way where
you can't set their properties. Persistence, reloptions, whatever.
There's just no place to mention any of that stuff - and if you wanted
to create a place, you'd have to invent special syntax for each
separate thing. That's why I think it's good that the normal way of
creating a partition is CREATE TABLE .. PARTITION OF. Because that
way, we know that the full power of the CREATE TABLE statement is
always available, and you can set anything that you could set for a
table that is not a partition.
Of course, that is not to say that some people won't like to have a
feature of this sort. I expect they will. The approach does have some
drawbacks, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (48+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYcjL+w2BQzku5iNXKR5fyxJMSP3avQta8xngioTX7D7A@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox