MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZtZW4gEJOPmeP-nT@paquier.xyz> <ZtZn0-JVQuBUbpWw@nathan>
 <Zta_CFeFCx7bMBL8@paquier.xyz> <ZtcsLnUSuALqEyE-@nathan>
 <Zt6cDnwSvnuLLnak@paquier.xyz>
 <Zt-V90bS4diq4e0Q@paquier.xyz> <ZurvG45F3lQHLw4G@nathan>
 <Zur4qqhABOXtZS8h@nathan>
 <Zutc67q6my4AXOt2@paquier.xyz> <ZuujwbHFor1zLufJ@paquier.xyz>
 <Zv36cbgluA_oZPYq@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <Zv36cbgluA_oZPYq@paquier.xyz>
From: Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:55:15 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAOzEurQZ1a+6d1K8b=+Ww1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOzEurQZ1a%2B6d1K8b%3D%2BWw1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:42=E2=80=AFPM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 01:08:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I have applied 0001 for now to add ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE.  Attached is
> > the remaining piece.
>
> And the second piece is now applied as of e2bab2d79204.
> --
> Michael

Hi,

Should we consider preventing tab completion for PARTITION BY
immediately after CREATE TABLE name (...)? Or is it fine to leave it
as is, given that it's syntactically correct?

--=20
Best regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT OSS Center