| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
| Date: | 2011-07-26 13:08:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoamWL=7kTnycEzZSnB_tv7J+zpcrTA_NozYuOq-ML_j6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
<nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah. I think it's good that there's a barrier to blindly dropping a
>> constraint that may be important to have on children, but there should
>> be a way to override that.
>
> Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users shooting
> themselves in the foot. It can be easy to conjure up a
> parent-only-constraint that does not gel too well with its children. And
> that's precisely why this feature was added in the first place..
Yeah, but I think we need to take that chance. At the very least, we
need to support the equivalent of a non-inherited CHECK (false) on
parent tables.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-07-26 13:20:36 | longstanding mingw warning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-26 13:07:11 | Re: write scalability |