Re: Odd behavior of partitioned ALTER TABLE ONLY ... ADD PRIMARY KEY

Alvaro Herrera  writes:
> On 2019-Apr-21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM that this is a bug, not a feature: if there's any point at
>> all to saying ONLY in this context, it's that we're not supposed
>> to be doing anything as expensive as adding a new constraint to
>> a child partition.  No?  So I think that this should have failed.

> Hmm, yeah, this is not intentional and I agree that it shouldn't be
> doing this.

>> We need to require the partition(s) to already have attnotnull set.

> Sounds good to me, yes.

> Do you want me to see about this?

It's tied up in the other patch I'm working on, so I can deal with it.

			regards, tom lane