Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/10/18 1:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> Implement table partitioning.
> >>
> >> Is it intentional that you can use ALTER TABLE OWNER TO on the parent
> >> table, and that this does not recurse to modify the partitions' owners?
> >> This doesn't seem to be mentioned in comments nor documentation, so it
> >> seems an oversight to me.
>
> Hmm, I would say of it that the new partitioning didn't modify the
> behavior that existed for inheritance.
>
> That said, I'm not sure if the lack of recursive application of ownership
> change to descendant tables is unintentional.
My view is that the fact that partitioning uses inheritance is just an
implementation detail. We shouldn't let historical behavior for
inheritance dictate behavior for partitioning. Inheritance has many
undesirable warts.
> > The alter table docs say that ONLY must be specified if one does not
> > want to modify descendants, so I think this is a bug.
>
> Just to clarify, if we do think of it as a bug, then it will apply to the
> inheritance case as well, right?
I'd leave it alone.
--
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