From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Date: | 2016-11-03 15:47:25 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLTQGMW80CLEkPRFh53vWr=K569zMzfHe7Vw3q6UDdKg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> OK, I changed things so that DROP TABLE a_partition no longer complains
> about requiring to detach first. Much like how index_drop() locks the
> parent table ('parent' in a different sense, of course) and later
> invalidates its relcache, heap_drop_with_catalog(), if the passed in relid
> is a partition, locks the parent table using AccessExclusiveLock, performs
> its usual business, and finally invalidates the parent's relcache before
> closing it without relinquishing the lock. Does that sounds sane?
Yes.
> One
> downside is that if the specified command is DROP TABLE parent CASCADE,
> the above described invalidation is a waste of cycles because the parent
> will be dropped anyway after all the partitions are dropped.
I don't think that's even slightly worth worrying about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-03 15:49:31 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-03 15:45:23 | Re: Complete LOCK TABLE ... IN ACCESS|ROW|SHARE |