| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)sheeky(dot)biz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
| Date: | 2007-03-08 18:44:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20070308184419.GU24979@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:52:27PM +0530, NikhilS wrote:
> >I think it'd be great to make adding and removing partitions as
> >simple as ALTER TABLE. I don't think that DELETE should be the
> >mechanism to drop a partition, though. Again, DML statements
> >shouldn't be performing DDL.
>
>
> Since partition is inheritance-based, a simple DROP or "NO INHERIT" will do
> the job to deal with the partition. Do we want to reinvent additional syntax
> when these are around and are documented?
Well, if the syntax for adding a new partition eventually ends up as
ALTER TABLE ADD PARTITION, then it would make more sense that you remove
a partition via ALTER TABLE DROP PARTITION.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-03-08 18:51:19 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-03-08 18:44:10 | Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-03-08 18:51:19 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-08 18:34:27 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby |