On 2017/02/20 5:31, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 February 2017 at 11:32, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 10 February 2017 at 06:19, Amit Langote
>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>>  the "right thing" here being that the
>>> command's code either throws an error or warning (in some cases) if the
>>> specified table is a partitioned table or ignores any partitioned tables
>>> when it reads the list of relations to process from pg_class.
>> This is a massive assumption and deserves major discussion.
>> My expectation is that "partitioned tables" are "tables". Anything
>> else seems to fly in the face of both the SQL Standard and the POLA
>> principle for users coming from other database systems.
>> IMHO all the main actions should all "just work" not throw errors.
> This included DROP TABLE, which I commented on before.
> CASCADE should not be required.

Yeah, it seemed like that is the consensus so I posted a patch [0], which
re-posted in a new thread titled "dropping partitioned tables without


[0] https://postgr.es/m/ca132b99-0d18-439a-fe65-024085449259%40lab.ntt.co.jp
[1] https://postgr.es/m/6c420206-45d7-3f56-8325-4bd7b76483ba%40lab.ntt.co.jp

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to