| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| 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: | 2016-11-24 19:36:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20161124193611.42imqbihlack7vmh@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-11-24 20:39:12 | Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-11-24 18:47:11 | Re: 9.6 TAP tests and extensions |