| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT |
| Date: | 2019-01-15 18:42:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2815.1547577776@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-10, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>> However, when you use ADD CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY you can't use ONLY, so
>> would it be a good idea to make ADD CONSTRAINT UNIQUE behave the same way,
>> i.e. error out ?
> I haven't investigated this angle. It seems more complex than just a
> simple bugfix, right?
Wouldn't that be throwing away the entire point of the ONLY behavior,
ie to allow the component indexes to be built one at a time, without
holding locks across the whole partition tree?
I'm having a hard time getting from "ONLY confuses me" to "nobody
should be allowed to do this". I think there is a documentation
and UX issue here, but I don't see that there's anything wrong
with the functionality.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2019-01-15 18:53:11 | Re: Postgres 10, changing user by "set role {user};" doesn't use that users "default_transaction_isolation" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-15 18:26:28 | Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT |