| 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 16:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | 478CE45A.1080601@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
> DBAs tend to be belt *and* suspenders guys, no?
I rather know those admins with stupid looking faces who are wondering
why their transactions fail. Often enough, that can have a lot of
different reasons. Extending the set of possible traps doesn't seem like
a clever idea for those admins.
> I'd think a lot of them
> would want a table constraint, plus a partitioning rule that rejects
> anything outside the intended partitions.
I'm rather a fan of the DRY principle (don't repeat yourself). Because
having to maintain redundant constraints smells suspiciously like a
maintenance nightmare.
And where's the real use of making the database system check twice? Want
to protect against memory corruption in between the two checks, eh? :-)
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-01-15 16:53:22 | Re: Tuning Postgresql on Windows XP Pro 32 bit |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-15 16:45:26 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |