On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote: > * Tom Lane ([email protected]) wrote: >> (Of course, maybe the question we ought to be asking here is why >> ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION failed to go with the flow and be a >> combinable action.) > > I did wonder that myself but havne't looked at the code. I'm guessing > there's a reason it's that way.
I thought the possibility of something like the following happening should be avoided: alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1, 2, 3), add b int; ERROR: child table is missing column "b" Although, the same can be said about ALTER TABLE child INHERIT parent, I guess. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
