| 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 |
| Message-ID: | a4f261c2-8554-f443-05ff-d97dddc19689@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| partitioned-table-ins-upd-doc-fixes-1.patch | text/x-diff | 2.0 KB |
| 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 |