Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Do we need to update the documentation?
>
> Yes, I think we should.  How about as in the attached?

Looks reasonable, but I was thinking you might also update the section
which contrasts inheritance-based partitioning with declarative
partitioning.

> By the way, code changes I made in the attached are such that a subsequent
> patch could implement firing statement-level triggers of all the tables in
> a partition hierarchy, which it seems we don't want to do.  Should then
> the code be changed to not create ResultRelInfos of all the tables but
> only the root table (the one mentioned in the command)?  You will see that
> the patch adds fields named es_nonleaf_result_relations and
> es_num_nonleaf_result_relations, whereas just es_root_result_relation
> would perhaps do, for example.

It seems better not to create any ResultRelInfos that we don't
actually need, so +1 for such a revision to the patch.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company