Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness

From: Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Date: 2025-06-04 09:55:15
Message-ID: CAOzEurQZ1a+6d1K8b=+Ww1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:42 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 01:08:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I have applied 0001 for now to add ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE. Attached is
> > the remaining piece.
>
> And the second piece is now applied as of e2bab2d79204.
> --
> Michael

Hi,

Should we consider preventing tab completion for PARTITION BY
immediately after CREATE TABLE name (...)? Or is it fine to leave it
as is, given that it's syntactically correct?

--
Best regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT OSS Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-06-04 09:56:24 Re: Enhance pg_createsubscriber to create required standby.
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-06-04 09:17:46 Re: Custom Glibc collation version strings under LOCPATH