| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 vs. sql_inheritance |
| Date: | 2016-12-19 05:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | 425fa56c-1087-f452-c2f5-3889be3bffaf@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/12/17 10:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> If we were going to do anything about this,
>>>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
>>
>>> Go for it.
>>
>>> Let's also remove the table* syntax then.
>>
>> Meh --- that might break existing queries, to what purpose?
>>
>> We certainly shouldn't remove query syntax without a deprecation period.
>> I'm less concerned about that for GUCs.
>
> I agree. Patch attached, just removing the GUC and a fairly minimal
> amount of the supporting infrastructure.
+1 to removing the sql_inheritance GUC. The patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2016-12-19 07:04:49 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-12-19 04:59:08 | Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |