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

From Rushabh Lathia
Subject Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Date
Msg-id CAGPqQf1XNuSjrDHYWKkXTY812zCAi21n=dOhJZ4+PJzvbY0RFA@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
List pgsql-hackers
Okay, I have marked this as ready for committer.

Thanks,

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2) Add partition to the foo;
>
> create table foo_p1 partition of foo for values in (1, 2, 3) partition by
> list (b);
>
> postgres=# \d foo
>                 Table "public.foo"
>  Column |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
>  a      | integer |           |          |
>  b      | integer |           |          |
> Partition key: LIST (a)
> Number of partitions: 1 (Use \d+ to list them.)
>
> postgres=# \d+ foo
>                                     Table "public.foo"
>  Column |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Stats target
> | Description
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+--------------+-------------
>  a      | integer |           |          |         | plain   |
> |
>  b      | integer |           |          |         | plain   |
> |
> Partition key: LIST (a)
> Partitions: foo_p1 FOR VALUES IN (1, 2, 3) has partitions
>
> Above verbose output for foo says, foo_p1 "has partitions". But if I do
>
> postgres=# \d foo_p1
>                Table "public.foo_p1"
>  Column |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
>  a      | integer |           |          |
>  b      | integer |           |          |
> Partition of: foo FOR VALUES IN (1, 2, 3)
> Partition key: LIST (b)
> Number of partitions: 0
>
> it tell "Number of partitions: 0".
>
> I feel like information is conflicting with each other. AFAIU, idea about
> adding
> "has partitions" was to let know that it's a partitioned table. So can you
> directly
> add the "is partitioned" in place of "has partitions"?
>
> Did those change in the attached patch and update regression expected
> output.
>

Looks better.

> Also run pgindent on the patch.
>

Thanks for the changes. The patch looks good to me.


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



--
Rushabh Lathia

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup behavior on non-existent slot