| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: partitioning using dblink |
| Date: | 2008-03-03 17:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | 26809.1204565346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
>>> I got that there should be no difference... plus, I don't get any
>>> errors,
>>
>> You should have. The system enforces (or tries to) that a view can't be
>> part of an inheritance hierarchy, but you seem to have managed to find a
>> sequence of operations that avoids those checks. Turning a table into a
>> view with a manual CREATE RULE operation has always been a kluge, and
>> it's missing a check that the table isn't part of an inheritance tree.
> Is this a TODO? Seems so.
I think it's just a minor bugfix, but if you want to put it in TODO for
a day or two, go ahead...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-03 17:30:26 | Re: partitioning using dblink |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-03 17:18:15 | Re: partitioning using dblink |