> This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an
> inheritance parent and an inheritance child. It could have an ONLY
> constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or
> more parents. IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that
> coninhcount is irrelevant.
Oh I see.
> I think what you probably want to do is
> either (a) add a new column or (b) change conislocal to a char value
> and make it three-valued:
> n = inherited constraint, no local definition
> o = defined locally as an "ONLY" constraint
> i = defined locally as a non-ONLY constraint
> I think I favor the latter approach as more space-efficient, but I
> hear Tom muttering about backward-compatibility...
Yeah, in your case too an initdb would be required, so might as well go down
the route of a new column. Any preferences for the name?
constatic or confixed
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-07-28 14:05:04|
|Subject: Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-07-28 13:54:52|
|Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?|