From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor correction in alter_table.sgml |
Date: | 2016-12-23 11:33:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHnJvAtjK+pXbZBZOoAh1AyfmdsOmWGRy=ZqyVXzZScoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> (Of course, maybe the question we ought to be asking here is why
>> ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION failed to go with the flow and be a
>> combinable action.)
>
> I did wonder that myself but havne't looked at the code. I'm guessing
> there's a reason it's that way.
I thought the possibility of something like the following happening
should be avoided:
alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1, 2, 3), add b int;
ERROR: child table is missing column "b"
Although, the same can be said about ALTER TABLE child INHERIT parent, I guess.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-23 12:08:34 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-23 10:50:00 | Remove lower limit on checkpoint_timeout? |