On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:26:02PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Andres Freund <andres@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?
As the discussion has devolved here, it appears that there are, at
least conceptually, two fundamentally different classes of partition:
public, which is to say meaningful to DB clients, and "private", used
for optimizations, but otherwise opaque to DB clients.
Mashing those two cases together appears to cause more problems than
it solves.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
