On 07/27/2011 04:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Is this looking at the wrong problem? The reason I've wanted to get a parent check constraint not to fire in a child is because I'm using the parent/child relationship for partioning. Will this be relevant if/when an independent partitioning feature is added that does not rely on table inheritance?
Yes, I have clients using inheritance for non-partitioning purposes, and
they would love to have this.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-07-27 20:19:22|
|Subject: Re: SSI error messages|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-07-27 20:14:35|
|Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |