Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> 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.
> I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as > an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate > partitions separately does not really mean that they are their own > independent object. You don't stop to think "do I really want to drop > the TOAST table attached to this main table?" and attach a CASCADE > clause if so. You just drop the main table, and the toast one is > dropped automatically. I think new-style partitions should behave > equivalently. I agree with Alvaro's position. If you need CASCADE to get rid of the individual partitions, that's going to be a serious usability fail. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers