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.
> 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?
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers