| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(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: | 2011-07-30 04:55:44 |
| Message-ID: | CANgU5ZcAFfVnoDV0b6EKDycA92Ho-AhCeicenM4h5J1uJYvBQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Comments and further feedback, if any, appreciated.
>
> Did you look at how this conflicts with my patch to add not null
> rows to pg_constraint?
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=601
>
I was certainly not aware of this patch in the commitfest. Your patch
has a larger footprint with more functional changes in it. IMHO, it
will be easiest to queue this non-inheritable constraints patch behind
your patch in the commitfest. There will be certain bitrot, which I
can fix once your patch gets committed.
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jordani | 2011-07-30 05:23:44 | Re: Incremental checkopints |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-07-30 00:48:03 | Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process |