Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2016-12-09 02:31:40
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Stephen,

On 2016/12/08 22:35, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * The fact that there's no implementation of row movement should be
>>> documented as a limitation. We should also look at removing that
>>> limitation.
>> Yes, something to improve. By the way, since we currently mention INSERT
>> tuple-routing directly in the description of the partitioned tables in the
>> CREATE TABLE command reference, is that also the place to list this
>> particular limitation? Or is UPDATE command reference rather the correct
>> place?
> Both.

Attached a documentation fix patch.

Actually, there was no mention on the INSERT reference page of
tuple-routing occurring in case of partitioned tables and also the
possibility of an error if a *partition* is directly targeted in an
INSERT. Mentioned that as well.


Attachment Content-Type Size
partitioned-table-ins-upd-doc-fixes-1.patch text/x-diff 2.0 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-12-09 03:58:20 Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-12-09 01:27:33 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take