On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Since partitioned tables have no storage themselves, is there >> any technical reason we couldn't remove a partitioned table's dropped >> pg_attribute so that its TupleDesc matches partitions created later? > > You'd break views referring to the partitioned table, or at least to > any columns after the dropped one.
I will put a huge sign up next to my desk: "What about the rules?" > There's been talk of separating column identity (think OID) from column > logical and physical positions. If we did that, and had Vars using the > column identity number while tupdescs were sorted according to physical > position, then what you're thinking of could be made to work. But a > couple of people have attacked that problem and been unable to finish > it :-( Hmm, yeah I see. I have seen that[1] and I hope it comes back. It seems like it might be a step on the path towards incremental materialized views (at least in one proposal) which is why I asked about it on this list recently[2]. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20141209174146.gp1...@alvh.no-ip.org [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3ZHh%3Dp0nEEnVbs1Dig_UShPzHUcMNAqvDQUgYgcDo-pA%40mail.gmail.com -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
