Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, I don't have anything strongly against the idea of an
> uninherited constraint, though it sounds like Tom does. But I think
> allowing it just in the case of CHECK (false) would be pretty silly.
> And, I'm fairly certain that this isn't going to play nice with
> coninhcount... local constraints would have to be marked as local,
> else the wrong things will happen later on when you drop them.
Yeah. If we're going to allow this then we should just have a concept
of a non-inherited constraint, full stop. This might just be a matter
of removing the error thrown in ATAddCheckConstraint, but I'd be worried
about whether pg_dump will handle the case correctly, what happens when
a new child is added later, etc etc.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-07-27 20:14:35|
|Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-07-27 19:55:25|
|Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?|