On 3/10/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-03-09 kell 15:41, kirjutas Jim Nasby:
> On Mar 9, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> >>> Since partition is inheritance-based, a simple DROP or  "NO
> >>> will do the job to deal with the partition. Do we want to reinvent
> >>> additional syntax when these are around and are documented?
> >>
> >> Well, if the syntax for adding a new partition eventually
> >> ends up as ALTER TABLE ADD PARTITION, then it would make more
> >> sense that you remove a partition via ALTER TABLE DROP PARTITION.
> >
> > But DROP PARTITION usually moves the data from this partition to other
> > partitions,
> > so it is something different.
> It does? IIRC every partitioning system I've seen DROP PARTITION
> drops the data as well. It's up to you to move it somewhere else if
> you want to keep it.

Will this proposed DROP PARTITION just disassociate the table from the
master, or will it actually drop the partitions table from the whole
database ?

Thats why I would prefer the existing mechanism, there a DROP on the child
removes it and a NO INHERIT disassociates it. There might be situations
where we would want to just disassociate and not drop.


Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia

Skype me:  callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free:  http://www.skype.com

EnterpriseDB               http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to