Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2016/10/26 12:09, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2016/10/26 11:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Amit Langote
>>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, CopyTo() can be be taught to scan leaf partitions when a partitioned
>>>> table is specified, but I thought this may be fine initially.
>>>
>>> Okay, I don't want to add anything to your existing work unless it is
>>> important. However, I think there should be some agreement on which
>>> of the restrictions are okay for first version of patch. This can
>>> avoid such questions in future from other reviewers.
>>
>> OK, so I assume you don't find this particular restriction problematic in
>> long term.
>
> I think you can keep it as you have in patch. After posting your
> updated patches, please do send a list of restrictions which this
> patch is imposing based on the argument that for first version they
> are not essential.

OK, agreed that it will be better to have all such restrictions and
limitations of the first version listed in one place, rather than being
scattered across different emails where they might have been mentioned and
discussed.

I will try to include such a list when posting the latest set of patches.

Thanks,
Amit