On 2018/06/20 10:54, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:26:56PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>> I was under the impression that this was implied in the precious >>> phrasing but you guys visibly don't match with my impression. So I >>> would suggest this paragraph at the end: >>> "Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is >>> not allowed. Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be >>> its partitions at all levels and likewise if the partitioned table is >> >> You don't need to mention "at all levels", its implied recursively. > > Okay, done on master and REL_10_STABLE. I have adapted the tests and > the code on v10 where default partitions do not apply. I have also > removed the test case for partition pruning in REL_10_STABLE as those > have been mainly added by 8d4e70a6, master of course keeps it.
Thank you, especially for putting in the extra work for back-patching. I shouldn't have used default partition syntax in tests, sorry. > I have included Ashutosh's last suggestions and finished with the > following phrasing: I liked both of Ashutosh's suggestions, which I see you incorporated into the commit. > "Mixing temporary and permanent relations in the same partition tree is > not allowed. Hence, if the partitioned table is permanent, so must be > its partitions and likewise if the partitioned table is temporary. When > using temporary relations, all members of the partition tree have to be > from the same session." Just a minor nit in the last sentence: "have to be from" -> "must be from / must belong to" > I am not sure why this set of emails does not actually appear on > UI interface for archives of pgsql-hackers... All hackers are receiving > that, right? I evidently got your email just fine. :) Thanks, Amit
