Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was

2005-05-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Prevent child tables from altering constraints like CHECK that were inherited from the parent table --- Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doing anything to

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re:

2005-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doing anything to restrict dropping of inherited constraints seems like wasted effort and potentially annoying anyhow. Uh, why? Arguably the constraints are as much part of the parent table definition as the columns themselves. If you had check (f1 0) in

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths

2005-05-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 11:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doing anything to restrict dropping of inherited constraints seems like wasted effort and potentially annoying anyhow. Uh, why? Arguably the constraints are as much part of the parent table

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re:

2005-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you were going to fix that by adding a column that allows me to tell the difference between inherited and non-inherited relations, that would be a very useful piece of info for partition elimination. Inherited and non-inherited constraints you mean?