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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZEwed3zp+CHOtekfHaf_880Njx2fq5nYUkOpL5D1GZ0Q@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  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> index 1c219b03dd..6a179596ce 100644
>> --- a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> @@ -13297,8 +13297,10 @@ ATExecAttachPartition(List **wqueue, Relation rel, PartitionCmd *cmd)
>>               }
>>       }
>>
>> +     /* It's safe to skip the validation scan after all */
>>       if (skip_validate)
>> -             elog(NOTICE, "skipping scan to validate partition constraint");
>> +             ereport(INFO,
>> +                             (errmsg("skipping scan to validate partition constraint")));
>
> Why not just remove the message altogether?

That's certainly an option.  It might be noise in some situations.  On
the other hand, it affects whether attaching the partition is O(1) or
O(n), so somebody might well want to know.  Or maybe they might be
more likely to want a message in the reverse situation, telling them
that the partition constraint DOES need to be validated.  I'm not sure
what the best user interface is here; thoughts welcome.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes