| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported |
| Date: | 2018-06-04 20:50:05 |
| Message-ID: | 8501.1528145405@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Could we solve it by saying that triggers on partitioned tables aren't
>> allowed to change the partitioning values? (Or at least, not allowed
>> to change them in a way that changes the target partition.)
> That seems like a somewhat-unfortunate restriction.
Perhaps, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around what the
semantics ought to be. If a trigger on partition A changes the keys
so that the row shouldn't have gone into A at all, what then? That
trigger should never have fired, eh?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-06-04 21:01:52 | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-04 20:46:38 | Re: Code of Conduct plan |