| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-07-27 20:14:35 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-27 19:55:25 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |