On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I was imagining the action as being (1) detach all the child
> partitions, (2) make parent into a non-partitioned table, (3)
> drop the target column in each of these now-independent tables.
> No data movement. Other than the need to acquire locks on all
> the tables, it shouldn't be particularly slow.
I see. I think that would be reasonable, but like you say, it's not
clear that it's really what users would prefer. You can think of a
partitioned table as a first-class object and the partitions as
subordinate implementation details; or you can think of the partitions
as the first-class objects and the partitioned table as the
second-rate glue that holds them together. It seems like users prefer
the former view.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
