|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Derek Hans <derek(dot)hans(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Update does not move row across foreign partitions in v11|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
(2019/03/06 15:34), Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/06 15:10, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
>> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
>> @@ -3376,6 +3376,13 @@ ALTER TABLE measurement ATTACH PARTITION
>> +<command>UPDATE</command> row movement is not supported in the cases
>> + where the old row is contained in a foreign table partition.
>> ISTM that it's also a limitation that rows can be moved from a local
>> partition to a foreign partition *if the FDW support tuple routing*, so I
>> would vote for mentioning that as well here.
> Thanks for checking.
> I have updated the patch to include a line about this in the same
> paragraph, because maybe we don't need to make a new<listitem> for it.
Thanks for the patch!
The patch looks good to me, but one thing I'm wondering is: as suggested
by David, it would be better to rephrase this mention in the UPDATE
reference page, in a single commit:
"Currently, rows cannot be moved from a partition that is a foreign
table to some other partition, but they can be moved into a foreign
table if the foreign data wrapper supports it."
I don't think it needs to be completely rephrased; it's enough for me to
rewrite it to something like this:
"Currently, rows cannot be moved from a foreign-table partition to some
other partition, but they can be moved into a foreign-table partition if
the foreign data wrapper supports tuple routing."
And to make maintenance work easy, I think it might be better to just
put this on the limitations section of 5.10. Table Partitioning. What
do you think about that?
|Next Message||Perumal Raj||2019-03-07 13:39:49||Resolved: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X|
|Previous Message||Justin Pryzby||2019-03-07 10:32:39||Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X|
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2019-03-07 12:46:54||Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT|
|Previous Message||Alexey Kondratov||2019-03-07 12:27:25||Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line|