| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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 20:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4E307267.6000506@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-07-27 20:19:22 | Re: SSI error messages |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-07-27 20:14:35 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |