On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 02/15/2017 06:10 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On 13 February 2017 at 05:21, Amit Langote >> > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> >> > If I issue DROP TABLE elsewhere, it doesn't refuse to drop because it >> > has indexes, sequences etc on it. So why should it just because it has >> > partitions? >> >> Because partitions may have data. > > So would the table, were it not partitioned.
True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the dependency between a partitioned table and a partition of that table as DEPENDENCY_NORMAL or as DEPENDENCY_AUTO? With table inheritance, it's always been "normal" and I'm not sure there's any good reason for partitioning to make the opposite decision. The new partitioning implementation provides a user experience that is overall smoother than doing the same thing with inheritance, but it's not as if you can ignore the fact that your partitioned tables have sub-objects that are also tables. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
