Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance
Date
Msg-id 13118.1481905560@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> An earlier version of Amit's patches tried to handle this by forcing
> sql_inheritance on for partitioned tables, but it wasn't
> well-implemented and I don't see the point anyway.  Sure, turning off
> sql_inheritance off for partitioned tables produces stupid results.
> But turning off sql_inheritance for inheritance hierarchies also
> produces stupid results.  If we were going to do anything about this,
> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.

+1.  If memory serves, we invented that GUC as a backwards-compatibility
hack, because once upon a time the default behavior was equivalent to
sql_inheritance = off.  But that was a long time ago; a bit of digging
in the git history suggests we changed it in 2000.  It's hard to believe
that anybody still relies on being able to turn it off.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes