On 2019-Apr-21, Tom Lane wrote: > ISTM that this is a bug, not a feature: if there's any point at > all to saying ONLY in this context, it's that we're not supposed > to be doing anything as expensive as adding a new constraint to > a child partition. No? So I think that this should have failed.
Hmm, yeah, this is not intentional and I agree that it shouldn't be doing this. > We need to require the partition(s) to already have attnotnull set. Sounds good to me, yes. Do you want me to see about this? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
