Hi Keith, On 2017/01/20 12:40, Keith Fiske wrote: > So testing things out in pg_partman for native sub-partitioning and ran > into what is a bug for me that I know I have to fix, but I'm curious if > this can be prevented in the first place within the native partitioning > code itself. The below shows a sub-partitioning set where the sub-partition > has a constraint range that is outside of the range of its parent. If the > columns were different I could see where this would be allowed, but the > same column is used throughout the levels of sub-partitioning. > Understandable if that may be too complex to check for, but figured I'd > bring it up as something I accidentally ran into in case you see an easy > way to prevent it.
This was discussed. See Robert's response (2nd part of): https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaQABrsLQK4ms_4NiyavyJGS-b6ZFkZBBNC%2B-P5DjJNFA%40mail.gmail.com In short, defining partitions across different levels such that the data user intended to insert into the table (the part of the sub-partition's range that doesn't overlap with its parent's) couldn't be, that's an operator error. It's like adding contradictory check constraints to the table: create table foo (a int check (a > 0 and a < 0)); insert into foo values (1); ERROR: new row for relation "foo" violates check constraint "foo_a_check" DETAIL: Failing row contains (1). One (perhaps the only) thing that could be done is to warn users to prevent this kind of mistake through documentation. Trying to do anything else in the core partitioning code is making it too complicated for not much benefit (also see Robert's last line, :)). Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers