On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:47:04AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > I think that we should only capture transition tuples captured from > > the explicitly named relation, since we only fire AFTER STATEMENT > > triggers on that relation. I see no inconsistency with the policy of > > rejecting transition tables on partitioned tables (as I proposed and > > Kevin accepted[1]), because partitioned tables can't have any data so > > there would be no point. In contrast, every parent table in an > > inheritance hierarchy is also a regular table and can hold data, so I > > think we should allow transition tables on them, and capture > > transition tuples from that table only when you modify it directly. > > I suspect that most users would find it more useful to capture all of > the rows that the statement actually touched, regardless of whether > they hit the named table or an inheritance child. I just don't know > if it's practical to make that work. (And, of course, I don't know if > other people agree with my assessment of what is useful ... but > generally there seems to be support for making partitioned tables, at > least, look more like a single table that happens to have partitions > and less like a bunch of separate tables attached to each other with > duct tape.)
+1 on the not-duct-tape view of partitioned tables. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
