> >> Regarding 6, it seems to me that because Append does not have a
> associated
> >> relid (like scan nodes have with scanrelid).  Maybe we need to either
> fix
> >> Append or create some enhanced version of Append which would also
> support
> >> dynamic pruning.
> >>
> >
> > Right, I think, Append might store the relid of the parent table as well
> as
> > partitioning information at that level along-with the subplans.
> For time being, I will leave this as yet unaddressed (I am thinking about
> what is reasonable to do for this also considering Robert's comment).  Is
> that OK?

Right now EXPLAIN of select * from t1, where t1 is partitioned table shows
-> Seq Scan on t1
-> Seq scan on partition 1
-> seq scan on partition 2
which shows t1 as well as all the partitions on the same level. Users might
have accepted that for inheritance hierarchy but for partitioning that can
be confusing, esp. when all the error messages and documentation indicate
that t1 is an empty (shell?) table. Instead showing it like
Append for t1 -- (essentially show that this is Append for partitioned
table t1, exact text might vary)
-> Seq scan on partition 1
-> ....
would be more readable. Similarly if we are going to collapse all the
Append hierarchy, it might get even more confusing. Listing all the
intermediate partitioned tables as Seq Scan on them would be confusing for
the reasons mentioned above, and not listing them might make user wonder
about the reasons for their disappearance. I am not sure what's the
solution their.

> > Some more comments
> > Would it be better to declare PartitionDescData as
> > {
> > int nparts;
> > PartitionInfo *partinfo; /* array of partition information structures. */
> > }
> I think that might be better.  Will do it the way you suggest.
> > The new syntax allows CREATE TABLE to be specified as partition of an
> > already partitioned table. Is it possible to do the same for CREATE
> > TABLE? Or that's material for v2? Similarly for ATTACH PARTITION.
> OK, I will address this in the next version.  One question though: should
> foreign table be only allowed to be leaf partitions (ie, no PARTITION BY

That seems a better way. Otherwise users might wonder whether we keep the
partitions of a foreign table on the foreign server which won't be true.
But then we allow foreign tables to have local tables as children in
inheritance, so somebody from that background might find it incompatible. I
think we shouldn't let the connection between partitioning and inheritance
linger longer than necessary.

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Reply via email to