Re: ITYM DROP TABLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ITYM DROP TABLE
Date
Msg-id 28546.1308063822@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ITYM DROP TABLE  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: ITYM DROP TABLE
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of lun jun 13 17:44:05 -0400 2011:
>> I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE
overDELETE rather than ALTER TABLE.
 

> I think the point of the existing wording is to point out
> ALTER TABLE / NO INHERIT.  I wonder if it's worth expanding the text to
> mention both, such as

> -      <command>ALTER TABLE</> is far faster than a bulk operation.
> +      <command>ALTER TABLE</> (to split out a sub-table from the partitioned
> +      table) and <command>DROP TABLE</> (to remove a partition altogether) are
> +      both far faster than a bulk operation.

I think you need to spell out "ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT" if you are going
to do that.  This formulation seems to imply that *any* form of ALTER
TABLE is fast, which surely ain't the truth.

> However, this introductory text is supposed to be very brief; maybe we
> should remove mention of specific commands here.

No, I don't think it needs to be that brief.  But if you think your
version is too long, remove the parenthetical remarks.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: SSI work for 9.1
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost