Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the dependency
>> between a partitioned table and a partition of that table as
>> DEPENDENCY_NORMAL or as DEPENDENCY_AUTO? With table inheritance, it's
>> always been "normal" and I'm not sure there's any good reason for
>> partitioning to make the opposite decision.

> I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as
> an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate
> partitions separately does not really mean that they are their own
> independent object. You don't stop to think "do I really want to drop
> the TOAST table attached to this main table?" and attach a CASCADE
> clause if so. You just drop the main table, and the toast one is
> dropped automatically. I think new-style partitions should behave
> equivalently.

I agree with Alvaro's position. If you need CASCADE to get rid of the
individual partitions, that's going to be a serious usability fail.

regards, tom lane