| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Date: | 2017-05-08 00:47:52 |
| Message-ID: | 618e767e-4316-bc03-1ae4-84203c6e506b@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/05/03 2:48, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> You're right. I agree that whatever text we add here should be pointing
>> out that statement-level triggers of affected child tables are not fired,
>> when root parent is specified in the command.
>>
>> Since there was least some talk of changing that behavior for regular
>> inheritance so that statement triggers of any affected children are fired
>> [1], I thought we shouldn't say something general that applies to both
>> inheritance and partitioning. But since nothing has happened in that
>> regard, we might as well.
>>
>> How about the attached?
>
> Looks better, but I think we should say "statement" instead of
> "operation" for consistency with the previous paragraph, and it
> certainly shouldn't be capitalized.
Agreed, done. Attached updated patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Clarify-statement-trigger-behavior-with-inheritance.patch | text/x-diff | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-08 01:22:52 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-07 23:43:34 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |