Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2016-11-25 01:08:27
Message-ID: 16d032df-8847-972c-9a69-25e6daa5dc25@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/11/25 4:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/11/24 15:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>>>> You have to specify column constraints using the keywords WITH OPTIONS,
>>>> like below:
>>>>
>>>> create table p1 partition of p (
>>>> a with options primary key
>>>> ) for values in (1);
>>>
>>> Oh, sorry for not noticing it. You are right. Why do we need "with
>>> option" there? Shouldn't user be able to specify just "a primary key";
>>> it's not really an "option", it's a constraint.
>>
>> I just adopted the existing syntax for specifying column/table constraints
>> of a table created with CREATE TABLE OF type_name.
>
> I think CREATE TABLE OF is pretty much a corner case. I agree that
> allowing the constraint right after the constraint name is more
> intuitive.

I assume you meant "...right after the column name"?

I will modify the grammar to allow that way then, so that the following
will work:

create table p1 partition of p (
a primary key
) for values in (1);

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-11-25 01:09:57 Re: 9.6 TAP tests and extensions
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-11-25 01:04:52 Re: Random PGDLLIMPORTing