On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Langote
>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> > Actually, p1 is a partitioned table, so the error.  And I realize that
>> > that's a wrong behavior.  Currently the check is performed using only the
>> > relkind, which is bogus.  Specifying ONLY should cause an error only when
>> > the table has partitions.
>> That sounds like a REALLY bad idea, because now you're going to end up
>> with a constraint that can never be enforced against any actual data
>> rows ... or else you're going to later pretend that ONLY wasn't
>> specified.  I think the rule that partitioned tables can't have
>> non-inherited constraints is absolutely right, and relaxing it is
>> quite wrong.
> I'm not following what you're getting at here.

Urk, I might be confusing ONLY with NO INHERIT.  Let me think about
this again...

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to