Amit, * Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) 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"
Sure, but what about something like: alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1, 2, 3), alter column b set default 1; ? > Although, the same can be said about ALTER TABLE child INHERIT parent, I > guess. Certainly seems like that's an indication that there are use-cases for allowing it then. We do tend to avoid arbitrary restrictions and if there isn't really anything code-level for ATTACH/DETACH partition to be this way then we change it to be allowed. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature