Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Because partitions may have data. > > > > So would the table, were it not partitioned. > > True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the dependency > between a partitioned table and a partition of that table as > DEPENDENCY_NORMAL or as DEPENDENCY_AUTO? With table inheritance, it's > always been "normal" and I'm not sure there's any good reason for > partitioning to make the opposite decision. I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate partitions separately does not really mean that they are their own independent object. You don't stop to think "do I really want to drop the TOAST table attached to this main table?" and attach a CASCADE clause if so. You just drop the main table, and the toast one is dropped automatically. I think new-style partitions should behave equivalently. You can make the partition an independent entity, but if you don't explicitly take that step beforehand, I don't see why we should see it that way implicitly. > The new partitioning > implementation provides a user experience that is overall smoother > than doing the same thing with inheritance, but it's not as if you can > ignore the fact that your partitioned tables have sub-objects that are > also tables. Now that partitions are declarative, the underlying implementation could change away from inheritance. It's now just an implementation artifact. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
