Adrian Klaver-4 wrote > On 12/03/2014 11:19 AM, Kris Deugau wrote: >> Is it possible to return the number of rows inserted to a partitioned >> table set up as per the examples on >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html, in >> the same way as if you inserted directly into a target table? >> >> I can sort of see why it returns 0, because 0 rows are actually inserted >> in the parent table, but I'd prefer not to have to make all the code >> around this use case partition-aware; most of it isn't mine. > > I have not used partitioned tables enough, but it would seem this is > covered here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/sql-select.html > > table_name > > The name (optionally schema-qualified) of an existing table or > view. If ONLY is specified before the table name, only that table is > scanned. If ONLY is not specified, the table and all its descendant > tables (if any) are scanned. < ***>Optionally, * can be specified after > the table name to explicitly indicate that descendant tables are > included.<***> I don't see how what you quoted has any relation to the problem posed by the OP... Going from recent memory this particular behavior complaint has now come up three times in the past six months - the main complaint previously is that given an insert trigger for the partition you have to copy, not move, the insert to the child tables - leaving the parent table populated during the insert and thus returning the count - and then delete the record from the parent table. That sequence, while solving the row number problem, then causes vacuum to behave undesirably. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/INSERT-to-partitioned-table-doesn-t-return-row-count-tp5829148p5829157.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
