| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| 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>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 14:51:58 |
| Message-ID: | 9866.1311691918@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 Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
> <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
No, the right solution is to invent an actual concept of partitioned
tables, not to keep adding ever-weirder frammishes to inheritance so
that it can continue to provide an awkward, poorly-performing emulation
of them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-26 14:59:05 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-26 14:41:48 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |