| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, April Lorenzen <outboundindex(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: error-free disabling of individual child partition |
| Date: | 2006-05-23 14:59:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1148396351.2646.829.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:29 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > ALTER TABLE childN ALTER INHERITS DROP (parent);
> > ALTER TABLE childN ALTER INHERITS ADD (parent);
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to allow the ADD/DROP to happen in the same
> statement, like:
>
> ALTER TABLE childN ALTER INHERITS DROP crt_parent ADD new_parent;
>
> or:
>
> ALTER TABLE childN ALTER INHERITS DROP crt_parent, ALTER INHERITS ADD
> new_parent;
>
> That would still make it one statement, but more explicit. And it would
> eliminate the need for parenthesis (I assume they were needed for
> supplying more than 1 table to inherit/disinherit).
Sounds good.
Do we need the ALTER keyword? That isn't used anywhere apart from
manipulating columns. i.e.
ALTER TABLE childN INHERITS DROP old_parent;
ALTER TABLE childN INHERITS ADD new_parent;
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-23 15:01:01 | Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-23 14:53:47 | Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection? |