Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
От | Nikhil Sontakke |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABamaqN3Vxm4ige3ND7LzbC7UwuZkESuNvK8V7C4ad7SW9Uhzw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an
inheritance parent and an inheritance child. It could have an ONLY
constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or
more parents. IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that
coninhcount is irrelevant.
Oh I see.
I think what you probably want to do is
either (a) add a new column or (b) change conislocal to a char value
and make it three-valued:
n = inherited constraint, no local definition
o = defined locally as an "ONLY" constraint
i = defined locally as a non-ONLY constraint
I think I favor the latter approach as more space-efficient, but I
hear Tom muttering about backward-compatibility...
Yeah, in your case too an initdb would be required, so might as well go down the route of a new column. Any preferences for the name?
connoinh
conisonly
constatic or confixed
Others?
Regards,
Nikhils
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: