| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Jeff Cohen <jcohen(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Date: | 2008-01-15 16:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | 24924.1200415116@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't agree with that at all. I can imagine plenty of situations
>> where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should*
>> be treated as an error.
> Isn't it better to have these constraints as table constraints, instead
> of burying them in the partitioning definition? Mixing those two
> concepts seems very wired to me.
DBAs tend to be belt *and* suspenders guys, no? I'd think a lot of them
would want a table constraint, plus a partitioning rule that rejects
anything outside the intended partitions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-15 16:45:26 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2008-01-15 16:37:27 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |