On 5/11/14 6:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The $64 question is whether we'd accept an implementation that fails
> if the target table has children (ie, is partitioned). That seems
> to me to not be up to the project's usual quality expectations, but
> maybe if there's enough demand for a partial solution we should do so.
I think that partial support is better than no support unless there are
concerns about forwards compatibility. I don't see such concerns having
been expressed for this feature.
.marko
