On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 21:22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> but wanting a CHECK constraint that applies to only one partition >> seems pretty reasonable (e.g. CHECK that records for older years are >> all in the 'inactive' state, or whatever). > > On a hash-partitioned table?
No, probably not. But do we really want the rules for partitioned tables to be different depending on the kind of partitioning in use? > I'm not saying it can't work for any datatype, I just think it'd be a > very bad idea to make it work for any non-trivial ones. The likelihood > of reguarly breaking or preventing us from improving things seems high. > I'm not sure that having a design where this most of the time works for > some datatypes is a good one. I think you might be engaging in undue pessimism here, but I suspect we need to actually try doing the work before we know how it will turn out. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
