Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Partitioning feature ...

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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).


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.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hitoshi HaradaDate: 2009-04-01 10:13:40
Subject: Re: Sort a column that does not exist
Previous:From: Vlad ArkhipovDate: 2009-04-01 03:52:03
Subject: Duplicate key value error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group