| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Kedar Potdar <kedar(dot)potdar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Gupta <amit(dot)pc(dot)gupta(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning feature ... |
| Date: | 2009-04-01 05:07:44 |
| Message-ID: | a301bfd90903312207p732cc50dpb22978f989d1e6ff@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> We already have system triggers -- the FK triggers. I don't think we've
>>> had all that much trouble with them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In the case of the FK triggers, it's intentional (and maybe even
>> documented) that users should be able to place their own triggers before
>> or after the FK triggers.
>>
>
> If it's documented I think it's well hidden ;-) ISTM that the fact that we
> implement FK constraints via triggers is really an implementation detail,
> not something the user should be encouraged to mess with.
>
> Is there a good reason why partitioning
>> triggers should be different?
>>
>
> Probably not. ISTM that the scheme should turn tgisconstraint into a
> multi-valued item (tgkind: 'u' = userland, 'c'= constraint, 'p' = partition
> or some such).
>
+1.
This seems to be the best way forward if we stick to triggers for
partitioning. I think they appear to serve the purpose well for this
use-case and maybe with this scheme they will be low-level enough too.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2009-04-01 10:13:40 | Re: Sort a column that does not exist |
| Previous Message | Vlad Arkhipov | 2009-04-01 03:52:03 | Duplicate key value error |