Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Date: 2011-07-27 20:08:01
Message-ID: 15123.1311797281@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-07-27 20:14:35
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-07-27 19:55:25
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group