Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I am not (or no longer) sure how that argument affects INSERT on
> partitioned tables with tuple-routing though. Are partitions at all
> levels *implicitly specified to be affected* when we say INSERT INTO
> root_partitioned_table?

I'd say yes.

>> Some of the other things that we might want to consider disallowing on
>> parent table could be:
>> a. Policy on table_name
>
> Perhaps. Since there are no rows in the parent table(s) itself of a
> partition hierarchy, it might not make sense to continue to allow creating
> row-level security policies on them.

No, per my previous email. Those policies are emphatically not without effect.

>> b. Alter table has many clauses, are all of those allowed and will it
>> make sense to allow them?
>
> Currently, we only disallow the following with partitioned parent tables
> as far as alter table is concerned.
>
> - cannot change inheritance by ALTER TABLE partitioned_table INHERIT ...
>
> - cannot let them be regular inheritance parents either - that is, the
> following is disallowed: ALTER TABLE some_able INHERIT partitioned_table
>
> - cannot create UNIQUE, PRIMARY KEY, FOREIGN KEY, EXCLUDE constraints
>
> - cannot drop column involved in the partitioning key
>
> Most other forms that affect attributes and constraints follow the regular
> inheritance behavior (recursion) with certain exceptions such as:
>
> - cannot add/drop an attribute or check constraint to *only* to/from
> the parent
>
> - cannot add/drop NOT NULL constraint to/from *only* the parent
>
> Thoughts?

Seems sensible to me.

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