Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2017/05/08 10:22, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> <para>
> + A statement that targets the root table in a inheritance or partitioning
> + hierarchy does not cause the statement-level triggers of affected child
> + tables to be fired; only the root table's statement-level triggers are
> + fired. However, row-level triggers of any affected child tables will be
> + fired.
> + </para>
> +
> + <para>
>
> Why talk specifically about the "root" table? Wouldn't we describe
> the situation more generally if we said [a,the] "parent"?

I think that makes sense. Modified it to read: "A statement that targets
a parent table in a inheritance or partitioning hierarchy..." in the
attached updated patch.

Thanks,
Amit