On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@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
