On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I agree that we could do that, but what value would it have?  It just
>> forces the user to spend two SQL commands doing what could otherwise
>> be done in one.
> I don't think it's going to be two commands always. A user who wants
> to attach a foreign table as a partition, "knows" that the data on the
> foreign server honours the partitioning bounds. If s/he knows that
> probably he added the constraint on the foreign table, so that planner
> could make use of it. Remember this is an existing foreign table. If
> s/he is not aware that the data on the foreign server doesn't honour
> partition bounds, adding that as a partition would be a problem. I
> think, this step gives the user a chance to make a conscious decision.

I think attaching the foreign table as a partition constitutes a
sufficiently-conscious decision.

> At least we need to update the documentation.

Got a proposal?

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:

Reply via email to