On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Thomas Munro >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Robert Haas wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Yes, agreed. For the plain inheritance cases each row would need to >>>> have an indicator of which relation it comes from (tableoid); I'm not >>>> sure if such a thing would be useful in the partitioning case. >>> >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:26 AM, David Fetter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +1 on the not-duct-tape view of partitioned tables. >>> >>> Hmm. Ok. Are we talking about PG10 or PG11 here? Does this approach >>> makes sense? >> >> I was thinking PG10 if it can be done straightforwardly. > > Ok, I will draft a patch to do it the way I described and see what people > think.
FYI I am still working on this and will post a draft patch to do this (that is: make transition tables capture changes from children with appropriate tuple conversion) in the next 24 hours. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
