| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: | 2011-07-28 13:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | 7330.1311861043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> What we need is to persist information of a particular constraint to be as
> specified - ONLY for this table. We could do that by adding a new column in
> pg_constraint like 'connoinh' or something, but I guess we would prefer not
> to get into the initdb business.
Uh, why not? I trust you're not imagining this would get back-patched.
> Alternatively we could bring about the same
> by using a combination of conislocal and coninhcnt.
Ugh. New column, please. If you're wondering why, see the flak Robert
has been taking lately for replacing pg_class.relistemp. Random changes
in the semantics of existing columns are trouble.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-28 13:54:52 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-28 13:46:41 | Re: error: could not find pg_class tuple for index 2662 |