On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:26:56PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> I was under the impression that this was implied in the precious >> phrasing but you guys visibly don't match with my impression. So I >> would suggest this paragraph at the end: >> "Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is >> not allowed. Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be >> its partitions at all levels and likewise if the partitioned table is > > You don't need to mention "at all levels", its implied recursively.
Okay, done on master and REL_10_STABLE. I have adapted the tests and the code on v10 where default partitions do not apply. I have also removed the test case for partition pruning in REL_10_STABLE as those have been mainly added by 8d4e70a6, master of course keeps it. I have included Ashutosh's last suggestions and finished with the following phrasing: "Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is not allowed. Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be its partitions and likewise if the partitioned table is temporary. When using temporary relations, all members of the partition tree have to be from the same session." I am not sure why this set of emails does not actually appear on UI interface for archives of pgsql-hackers... All hackers are receiving that, right? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
