Re: Rows removed on child table when updating parent partitioned table.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:02 PM David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> The convention on these lists is to inline or bottom-post, please do not
> top-post.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jonathan Strong <jonathanrstrong(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been away from coding for several years, but dusting off my chops
>> and getting back up to speed with PostgreSQL (love it!). So please forgive
>> me if my early answers here come off as naive. But my understanding of this
>> suggests that you shouldn't be using "update" on a serial field.
>>
>
> Yes Jonathan, your present understanding is flawed. The OP has provided
> a self-contained simple test case for the problem at hand - which even if
> not "best practice" is indeed valid to do and demonstrates the problem
> quite clearly. Without actually testing it out I would say that this is
> likely indeed an oversight in the partition row movement feature - it
> didn't take into account the ON UPDATE/ON DELETE clause.
>

Understood - thx. I'll watch and learn for a while. Thanks as well for the
list etiquette advice. I'll endeavor to follow convention.

- Jon