Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:30:54AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/04/27 1:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Amit Langote
> > <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >> FWIW, I too prefer the latter, that is, fire only the parent's triggers.
> >> In that case, applying only the patch 0001 will do.
> >
> > Do we need to update the documentation?
>
> Yes, I think we should. How about as in the attached?
>
> By the way, code changes I made in the attached are such that a subsequent
> patch could implement firing statement-level triggers of all the tables in
> a partition hierarchy, which it seems we don't want to do. Should then
> the code be changed to not create ResultRelInfos of all the tables but
> only the root table (the one mentioned in the command)? You will see that
> the patch adds fields named es_nonleaf_result_relations and
> es_num_nonleaf_result_relations, whereas just es_root_result_relation
> would perhaps do, for example.

Did I notice correctly that there's no way to handle transition tables
for partitions in AFTER STATEMENT triggers?

If not, I'm not suggesting that this be added at this late date, but
we might want to document that.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate