Re: foreign partition DDL regression tests

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign partition DDL regression tests
Date: 2017-03-08 15:04:26
Message-ID: CA+TgmoabMYfvkAxgw9tOEwn-4FgK7GJJk2KZw6Xv6dx+EKgWJA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I agree that we could do that, but what value would it have? It just
>> forces the user to spend two SQL commands doing what could otherwise
>> be done in one.
>
> I don't think it's going to be two commands always. A user who wants
> to attach a foreign table as a partition, "knows" that the data on the
> foreign server honours the partitioning bounds. If s/he knows that
> probably he added the constraint on the foreign table, so that planner
> could make use of it. Remember this is an existing foreign table. If
> s/he is not aware that the data on the foreign server doesn't honour
> partition bounds, adding that as a partition would be a problem. I
> think, this step gives the user a chance to make a conscious decision.

I think attaching the foreign table as a partition constitutes a
sufficiently-conscious decision.

> At least we need to update the documentation.

Got a proposal?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2017-03-08 15:16:59 Re: Hash support for grouping sets
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-08 14:58:42 Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan