From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT |
Date: | 2019-01-15 19:45:03 |
Message-ID: | be81b47a-c6ae-b88e-54d9-06ab4298a5de@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 1/15/19 2:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jan-15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> 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 now see that Jesper was talking about a completely different thing
> than I was thinking. I agree with you there -- it makes no sense to
> reject that command ... particularly because pg_dump uses it.
>
I now think Tom is correct that it is UX and documentation issue, and
changing the existing behavior is probably not a good thing.
Changing "invalid" to "incomplete" would be a good idea. Maybe "partial"
could be a good descriptor if not all partitions shares the unique
constraint.
Best regards,
Jesper
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-15 22:55:56 | Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-15 19:35:32 | Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT |