| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 14:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | CABamaqN3Vxm4ige3ND7LzbC7UwuZkESuNvK8V7C4ad7SW9Uhzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an
> inheritance parent and an inheritance child. It could have an ONLY
> constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or
> more parents. IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that
> coninhcount is irrelevant.
Oh I see.
> I think what you probably want to do is
> either (a) add a new column or (b) change conislocal to a char value
> and make it three-valued:
>
> n = inherited constraint, no local definition
> o = defined locally as an "ONLY" constraint
> i = defined locally as a non-ONLY constraint
>
> I think I favor the latter approach as more space-efficient, but I
> hear Tom muttering about backward-compatibility...
>
>
Yeah, in your case too an initdb would be required, so might as well go down
the route of a new column. Any preferences for the name?
connoinh
conisonly
constatic or confixed
Others?
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-28 14:05:04 | Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-28 13:54:52 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |