What about sth like that: Normally the set of partitions established when initially defining the > table is not intended to remain static. It is common to want to remove > partitions holding old data and periodically add new partitions for new > data. One of the most important advantages of partitioning is precisely > that it allows this otherwise painful task to be executed nearly > instantaneously by manipulating the partition structure, rather than > physically moving large amounts of data around.
There are two ways for removing old data: 1) Drop the partition that is no longer necessary > DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02; > This is he simplest option for removing old data. This can very quickly > delete millions of records because it doesn't have to individually delete > every record. Note however that the above command requires taking an ACCESS > EXCLUSIVE lock on the parent table. > 2) Disconnect the partition from the partitioned table > This option that is often preferable. We are retaining access to data as a > table in its own right. This has two forms: czw., 15 maj 2025 o 20:28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał(a): > =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvhe...@kurilemu.de> writes: > > On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition > >>> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its > own > >>> right." > > >> AFAICS, it's correct as written. > > > Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach". > > I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned > > table" particulary suggestive of what's being described. > > Hm, maybe, but would that be putting too much emphasis on "detach" because > it's the command keyword? > > regards, tom lane > -- Pozdrawiam Paweł Szymczyk
