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>
 <CAOzEurQZ1a+6d1K8b=+Ww1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOzEurQZ1a+6d1K8b=+Ww1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:05:20 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAOzEurRRfPaZn_ZGmoDz2C3+74SAhk+FUZo_9oB1Zg_rQNGkYA@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/CAOzEurRRfPaZn_ZGmoDz2C3%2B74SAhk%2BFUZo_9oB1Zg_rQNGkYA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:55=E2=80=AFPM Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:42=E2=80=AFPM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.x=
yz> 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 i=
s
> > > 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?

Sorry.
CREATE TABLE name (...) -> CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE name (...)


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