Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> I suspect that most users would find it more useful to capture all of
>>>>> the rows that the statement actually touched, regardless of whether
>>>>> they hit the named table or an inheritance child.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, agreed. For the plain inheritance cases each row would need to
>>>> have an indicator of which relation it comes from (tableoid); I'm not
>>>> sure if such a thing would be useful in the partitioning case.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:26 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> +1 on the not-duct-tape view of partitioned tables.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Ok. Are we talking about PG10 or PG11 here? Does this approach
>>> makes sense?
>>
>> I was thinking PG10 if it can be done straightforwardly.
>
> Ok, I will draft a patch to do it the way I described and see what people think.

FYI I am still working on this and will post a draft patch to do this
(that is: make transition tables capture changes from children with
appropriate tuple conversion) in the next 24 hours.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com