From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: foreign partition DDL regression tests |
Date: | 2017-03-08 15:04:26 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoabMYfvkAxgw9tOEwn-4FgK7GJJk2KZw6Xv6dx+EKgWJA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I agree that we could do that, but what value would it have? It just
>> forces the user to spend two SQL commands doing what could otherwise
>> be done in one.
>
> I don't think it's going to be two commands always. A user who wants
> to attach a foreign table as a partition, "knows" that the data on the
> foreign server honours the partitioning bounds. If s/he knows that
> probably he added the constraint on the foreign table, so that planner
> could make use of it. Remember this is an existing foreign table. If
> s/he is not aware that the data on the foreign server doesn't honour
> partition bounds, adding that as a partition would be a problem. I
> think, this step gives the user a chance to make a conscious decision.
I think attaching the foreign table as a partition constitutes a
sufficiently-conscious decision.
> At least we need to update the documentation.
Got a proposal?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-03-08 15:16:59 | Re: Hash support for grouping sets |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-08 14:58:42 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |