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

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Date
Msg-id a4f261c2-8554-f443-05ff-d97dddc19689@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Declarative partitioning - another take  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Stephen,

On 2016/12/08 22:35, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * The fact that there's no implementation of row movement should be
>>> documented as a limitation.  We should also look at removing that
>>> limitation.
>>
>> Yes, something to improve.  By the way, since we currently mention INSERT
>> tuple-routing directly in the description of the partitioned tables in the
>> CREATE TABLE command reference, is that also the place to list this
>> particular limitation?  Or is UPDATE command reference rather the correct
>> place?
> 
> Both.

Attached a documentation fix patch.

Actually, there was no mention on the INSERT reference page of
tuple-routing occurring in case of partitioned tables and also the
possibility of an error if a *partition* is directly targeted in an
INSERT. Mentioned that as well.

Thanks,
Amit

-- 
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: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol