From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
Date: | 2011-07-26 13:33:51 |
Message-ID: | 4E2EC23F.1000306@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/26/2011 09:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
> <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Yeah. I think it's good that there's a barrier to blindly dropping a
>>> constraint that may be important to have on children, but there should
>>> be a way to override that.
>> Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users shooting
>> themselves in the foot. It can be easy to conjure up a
>> parent-only-constraint that does not gel too well with its children. And
>> that's precisely why this feature was added in the first place..
> Yeah, but I think we need to take that chance. At the very least, we
> need to support the equivalent of a non-inherited CHECK (false) on
> parent tables.
Indeed. I usually enforce that with a trigger that raises an exception,
but of course that doesn't help at all with constraint exclusion, and I
saw a result just a few weeks ago (I forget the exact details) where it
appeared that the plan chosen was significantly worse because the parent
table wasn't excluded, so there's a non-trivial downside from having
this restriction.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Lewis | 2011-07-26 13:44:14 | Re: vacuumlo patch |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-07-26 13:20:36 | longstanding mingw warning |