From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table |
Date: | 2017-04-17 16:43:25 |
Message-ID: | 20170417164325.GY9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit,
* Amit Langote (Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
> OK, I agree. I tweaked the existing bullet point about differences from
> traditional inheritance when using ONLY with partitioned tables.
Please take a look at the attached and let me know your thoughts on it.
I changed the code to complain again regarding TRUNCATE ONLY, since that
never actually makes sense on a partitioned table, unlike ALTER TABLE
ONLY, and adjusted the error messages and added hints.
> Updated patches attached (0002 and 0003 unchanged).
Regarding these, 0002 changes pg_dump to handle partitions much more
like inheritance, which at least seems like a decent idea but makes me a
bit concerned about making sure we're doing everything correctly. In
particular, we should really have regression tests for non-inherited
CHECK (and NOT NULL) constraints on partitions. Perhaps there are tests
covering those cases in the standard regression suite, but it's not
obvious from the SQL.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_alter_table_only_partitioned_tables_v2.patch | text/x-diff | 14.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?= | 2017-04-17 16:49:54 | Re: Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-04-17 16:33:44 | Re: On How To Shorten the Steep Learning Curve Towards PG Hacking... |