Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY6iD1Cqt=Uk3wyNm9SxN0gOEg3jk8ep=+b7V5pSjBmTA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I am guessing that for normal inheritance, a constraint on parent > doesn't necessarily imply the same constraint on the child (Amit > Langote gives me an example of NOT NULL constraint). CHECK constraints that apply to the parent would apply to all children, unless they are NO INHERIT, so even for regular inheritance, it might still be possible to prove something by ignoring things that won't necessarily cascade. For partitioning, it may be that we've got enough restrictions in place on what can happen that we can assume everything can cascade. Actually, I hope that's true, since the partitioned table has no storage of its own. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: