Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRe=wXrqYre1bRRd8gQf-XQnJEsf-OXyfV4aE0TGHFRDGQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,
Thomas's application to track patches told me that this patch needs
rebase. It also required some changes to the code. Here's the updated
version. I have squashed those two patches together.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Added this to 2017/7 commitfest to keep a track of it.
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/03/08 18:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> About the other statement you changed, I just realized that we should
>>>> perhaps do one more thing.  Show the Number of partitions, even if it's 0.
>>>>  In case of inheritance, the parent table stands on its own when there are
>>>> no child tables, but a partitioned table doesn't in the same sense.  I
>>>> tried to implement that in attached patch 0002.  Example below:
>>>>
>>>> create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
>>>> \d p
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>>> Number of partitions: 0
>>>>
>>>> \d+ p
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>>> Number of partitions: 0
>>>>
>>>> create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
>>>> \d p
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>>> Number of partitions: 1 (Use \d+ to list them.)
>>>>
>>>> \d+ p
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Partition key: LIST (a)
>>>> Partitions: p1 FOR VALUES IN (1)
>>>
>>> I liked that. PFA 0002 updated. I changed one of \d output to \d+ to
>>> better test partitioned tables without partitions in verbose and
>>> non-verbose mode. Also, refactored the your code to have less number
>>> of conditions. Please let me know if it looks good.
>>
>> Thanks, looks good.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Amit
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Ashutosh Bapat
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> The Postgres Database Company



-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution