On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> > The keyword "PARTITION" is >> > added to the full-reserved keyword list to support ADD/DROP PARTITION. >> >> Any chance to avoid that? PARTITION seems like something people might >> well use as a column or variable name. OTOH, it is reserved in SQL2008 >> and SQL2003. > > CREATE TABLE does not require PARTITION to be a reserved keyword, > but there are conflicts in ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP PARTITION: > > * ALTER TABLE ... DROP [COLUMN] name [CASCADE | RESTRICT] > * ALTER TABLE ... DROP PARTITION name [CASCADE | RESTRICT] > > There are some solutions: > > 1. Change COLUMN not to an optional word (unlikely) > 2. Change syntax of DROP PARTITION to DROP TABLE PARITION or so > 3. Change ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP PARTITION to top level > => CREATE/DROP PARTITION name ON table_name > > Any better ideas?
I'm not sure if this is better, but what about: CREATE PARTITION name ON TABLE name DROP PARTITION name Since partitions will live in pg_class and are in some sense "top level" objects, it seems like it would make sense to use a syntax that is similar to the one we use for indices... we can't say "DROP COLUMN name", because the table must be specified. But a partition name must be unambiguous, so making the user write it out explicitly doesn't seem friendly. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
