Re: doc: mentioned CREATE+ATTACH PARTITION as an alternative to CREATE TABLE..PARTITION OF

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:48 AM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
> > @Robert: I wonder why shouldn't CREATE..PARTITION OF *also* be patched
> > to first create a table, and then attach the partition, transparently
> > doing what everyone would want, without having to re-read the updated
> > docs or know to issue two commands?  I wrote a patch for this which
> > "doesn't fail tests", but I still wonder if I'm missing something..
> >
>
> I was thinking there might be either lock escalation issues or perhaps
> issues around index attachment that don't surface using create
> partition of, but I don't actually see any, in which case that does
> seem like a better change all around. But like you, I feel I must be
> overlooking something :-)

To be honest, I'm not sure whether either of you are missing anything
or not. I think a major reason why I didn't implement this was that
it's a different code path. DefineRelation() has code to do a bunch of
things that are also done by ATExecAttachPartition(), and I haven't
gone through exhaustively and checked whether there are any relevant
differences. I think that part of the reason that I did not research
that at the time is that the patch was incredibly complicated to get
working at all and I didn't want to take any risk of adding things to
it that might create more problems. Now that it's been a few years, we
might feel more confident.

Another thing that probably deserves at least a bit of thought is the
fact that ATTACH PARTITION just attaches a partition, whereas CREATE
TABLE does a lot more things. Are any of those things potential
hazards? Like what if the newly-created table references the parent
via a foreign key, or uses the parent's row type as a column type or
as part of a column default expression or in a CHECK constraint or
something? Basically, try to think of weird scenarios where the new
table would interact with the parent in some weird way where the
weaker lock would be a problem. Maybe there's nothing to see here: not
sure.

Also, we need to separately analyze the cases where (1) the new
partition is the default partition, (2) the new partition is not the
default partition but a default partition exists, and (3) the new
partition is not the default partition and no default partition
exists.

Sorry not to have more definite thoughts here. I know that when I
developed the original patch, I thought about this case and decided my
brain was full. However, I do not recall whether I knew about any
specific problems that needed to be fixed, or just feared that there
might be some.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com