Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYNEkGg9DPcx0wkSAQXvb2E4ktNBLUDmGU7ZfbFkMSNZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Do we need to update the documentation?
>
> Yes, I think we should.  How about as in the attached?

Looks reasonable, but I was thinking you might also update the section
which contrasts inheritance-based partitioning with declarative
partitioning.

> By the way, code changes I made in the attached are such that a subsequent
> patch could implement firing statement-level triggers of all the tables in
> a partition hierarchy, which it seems we don't want to do.  Should then
> the code be changed to not create ResultRelInfos of all the tables but
> only the root table (the one mentioned in the command)?  You will see that
> the patch adds fields named es_nonleaf_result_relations and
> es_num_nonleaf_result_relations, whereas just es_root_result_relation
> would perhaps do, for example.

It seems better not to create any ResultRelInfos that we don't
actually need, so +1 for such a revision to the patch.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Use SnapshotAny in get_actual_variable_range