| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Date: | 2017-05-02 17:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoag=oSHfSp0bswWCKxk=-pVYWTtKHry1Hpv2rV8mCi=pA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> You're right. I agree that whatever text we add here should be pointing
> out that statement-level triggers of affected child tables are not fired,
> when root parent is specified in the command.
>
> Since there was least some talk of changing that behavior for regular
> inheritance so that statement triggers of any affected children are fired
> [1], I thought we shouldn't say something general that applies to both
> inheritance and partitioning. But since nothing has happened in that
> regard, we might as well.
>
> How about the attached?
Looks better, but I think we should say "statement" instead of
"operation" for consistency with the previous paragraph, and it
certainly shouldn't be capitalized.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 18:26:05 | Re: Cached plans and statement generalization |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 17:42:37 | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |