Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Do you have any particular objection to taking the next step of removing >> enum InhOption in favor of making inhOpt a bool? > No, not really. I don't feel like it's an

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to credit anyone >> as a reviewer, but hopefully nobody's going to mind that too much >> considering this is a purely

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Robert Haas writes: > Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to credit anyone > as a reviewer, but hopefully nobody's going to mind that too much > considering this is a purely mechanical patch I wrote in 20 minutes. Do you have any particular objection to

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I agree. Patch attached, just removing the GUC and a fairly minimal >> amount of the supporting infrastructure. > > +1 to removing the sql_inheritance GUC. The patch looks good to me. Great, committed. I

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Any particular reason not to change inhOpt to be a simple boolean, and > remove the enum? No, no particular reason. I thought about it, but I didn't really see any advantage in getting rid of the typedef. --

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut writes: > >> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> If we were going to do anything about this, > >>> my vote would be to remove

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On 2016/12/17 10:40, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: If we were going to do anything about this, my vote would be to

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> If we were going to do anything about this, >>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. > >> Go for it. > >> Let's

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> If we were going to do anything about this, >> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. > Go for it. > Let's also remove the table* syntax then. Meh --- that might break existing

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > If we were going to do anything about this, > my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. +1. This option is long past the intended shelf life. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > If we were going to do anything about this, > my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. Go for it. Let's also remove the table* syntax then. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:34 PM, David Fetter wrote: > It occurs to me this probably isn't the only GUC that's basically just > a foot gun at this point. > > Is 10 a good time to sweep and clear them? We never make any progress trying to do these things "in bulk". If you think

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:05:21AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables: > > > > [breaks literally everything] > > > > I might be

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Robert Haas writes: > An earlier version of Amit's patches tried to handle this by forcing > sql_inheritance on for partitioned tables, but it wasn't > well-implemented and I don't see the point anyway. Sure, turning off > sql_inheritance off for partitioned tables

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables: > > explain (costs off) select * from test; > QUERY PLAN -- > Append > -> Seq Scan