From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, April Lorenzen <outboundindex(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: error-free disabling of individual child partition |
Date: | 2006-05-23 17:48:59 |
Message-ID: | 1148406539.2646.896.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > - ADD/DROP are opposites; you can use the other one to undo an action
> > taken in haste, error etc
>
> It's not going to be that easy. What exactly will happen to the child
> table's attislocal/attinhcount settings, and why, during ADD or DROP?
Never is round here ;-)
attislocal: If you set this to False, you wouldn't be able to set it
back again. If you leave it as it is, you'd never be able to recursively
drop a column. If you change it, you'll never be able to stop someone
from dropping a previously defined local column.
Proposal:
1. attislocal is not touched.
That means if you want to create a new partition you do this:
CREATE TABLE newChild () INHERITS (template);
... do some processing ...
ALTER TABLE newChild ADD INHERITS parent;
or this:
CREATE TABLE newChild () INHERITS (parent);
ALTER TABLE newChild DROP INHERITS parent;
... do some processing ...
ALTER TABLE newChild ADD INHERITS parent;
Neither of which I like.
2. attislocal is always set False when an appropriate ADD INHERITS is
actioned. Not ever set back again.
attinhcount changes as appropriate - up for ADDs and down for DROPs.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adis Nezirovic | 2006-05-23 18:05:45 | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-23 17:36:41 | Re: file-locking and postmaster.pid |