Re: Auto creation of Partitions

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "NikhilS" <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Shane Ambler" <pgsql(at)sheeky(dot)biz>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Auto creation of Partitions
Date: 2007-03-09 21:41:10
Message-ID: DC6300EF-8866-43FE-89EC-A0EAA1EB2943@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Mar 9, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>>> Since partition is inheritance-based, a simple DROP or "NO
>> INHERIT"
>>> will do the job to deal with the partition. Do we want to reinvent
>>> additional syntax when these are around and are documented?
>>
>> Well, if the syntax for adding a new partition eventually
>> ends up as ALTER TABLE ADD PARTITION, then it would make more
>> sense that you remove a partition via ALTER TABLE DROP PARTITION.
>
> But DROP PARTITION usually moves the data from this partition to other
> partitions,
> so it is something different.

It does? IIRC every partitioning system I've seen DROP PARTITION
drops the data as well. It's up to you to move it somewhere else if
you want to keep it.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-03-09 21:45:40 Re: scan_recycle_buffers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-09 21:40:46 Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-03-09 21:45:40 Re: scan_recycle_buffers
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-03-09 20:37:42 Re: scan_recycle_buffers