From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table |
Date: | 2017-04-12 19:44:28 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ7i=xbRuSip4GoY8Nsqy7j7-NXQQ0v38RRdjxQLqHFbA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error. And I realize that
>> > that's a wrong behavior. Currently the check is performed using only the
>> > relkind, which is bogus. Specifying ONLY should cause an error only when
>> > the table has partitions.
>>
>> That sounds like a REALLY bad idea, because now you're going to end up
>> with a constraint that can never be enforced against any actual data
>> rows ... or else you're going to later pretend that ONLY wasn't
>> specified. I think the rule that partitioned tables can't have
>> non-inherited constraints is absolutely right, and relaxing it is
>> quite wrong.
>
> I'm not following what you're getting at here.
Urk, I might be confusing ONLY with NO INHERIT. Let me think about
this again...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-12 20:25:01 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-12 19:43:05 | Re: [pgsql-www] Small issue in online devel documentation build |