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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers