| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ADD/DROP constraints |
| Date: | 2006-06-09 08:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA5790116B916@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Or maybe I should insist that a matching constraint name be present
> > *and* that the source text match? That's more of a pain to code
though.
>
> That could also break some partitioning schemes; I don't
> think it's a given that parents and children have matching
> constraints, and afaik a parent can have constraints that a
> child doesn't.
Yea, but that is why we would have parent ONLY constraints,
they would only apply when the tuple is actually stored in the parent
relation.
In the typical partitioning case it does not really matter since the
parent ONLY is typically empty.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ohp | 2006-06-09 09:12:07 | Re: Going for 'all green' buildfarm results |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-09 08:29:56 | Re: ADD/DROP constraints |