On 2017/02/20 5:31, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 16 February 2017 at 11:32, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 10 February 2017 at 06:19, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> >>> the "right thing" here being that the >>> command's code either throws an error or warning (in some cases) if the >>> specified table is a partitioned table or ignores any partitioned tables >>> when it reads the list of relations to process from pg_class. >> >> This is a massive assumption and deserves major discussion. >> >> My expectation is that "partitioned tables" are "tables". Anything >> else seems to fly in the face of both the SQL Standard and the POLA >> principle for users coming from other database systems. >> >> IMHO all the main actions should all "just work" not throw errors. > > This included DROP TABLE, which I commented on before. > > CASCADE should not be required.
Yeah, it seemed like that is the consensus so I posted a patch [0], which re-posted in a new thread titled "dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE" [1]. Thanks, Amit [0] https://postgr.es/m/ca132b99-0d18-439a-fe65-024085449259%40lab.ntt.co.jp [1] https://postgr.es/m/6c420206-45d7-3f56-8325-4bd7b76483ba%40lab.ntt.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers