From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor correction in alter_table.sgml |
Date: | 2016-12-23 13:31:19 |
Message-ID: | 20161223133119.GZ18360@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit,
* Amit Langote (amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> (Of course, maybe the question we ought to be asking here is why
> >> ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION failed to go with the flow and be a
> >> combinable action.)
> >
> > I did wonder that myself but havne't looked at the code. I'm guessing
> > there's a reason it's that way.
>
> I thought the possibility of something like the following happening
> should be avoided:
>
> alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1, 2, 3), add b int;
> ERROR: child table is missing column "b"
Sure, but what about something like:
alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1, 2, 3), alter column
b set default 1; ?
> Although, the same can be said about ALTER TABLE child INHERIT parent, I guess.
Certainly seems like that's an indication that there are use-cases for
allowing it then. We do tend to avoid arbitrary restrictions and if
there isn't really anything code-level for ATTACH/DETACH partition to be
this way then we change it to be allowed.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-12-23 13:47:14 | Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |
Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-12-23 13:12:22 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |