| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 15:47:17 |
| Message-ID: | 478CD585.1020009@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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. For instance, consider timestamped observations
> --- data in the future is certainly bogus, and data further back than
> you want to deal with must be an entry error as well.
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.
Or am I missing any benefit of mixing them?
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-01-15 15:55:02 | Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-15 15:46:32 | Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets |