Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "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: 2024-09-18 23:06:19
Message-ID: Zutc67q6my4AXOt2@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:58:34AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Could we also use ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE to remove the partitioned table
>> check in ATExecAddIndexConstraint()?
>
> Eh, never mind. That ends up being gross because you have to redo the
> relation type check in a few places.

I did not notice this one. I have to admit that the error message
consistency is welcome, not the extra checks required at
transformation.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-09-18 23:07:04 Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-09-18 21:57:51 Re: Add memory/disk usage for WindowAgg nodes in EXPLAIN