Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke > <nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers