Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT
Date
Msg-id 2815.1547577776@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-10, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>> However, when you use ADD CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY you can't use ONLY, so
>> would it be a good idea to make ADD CONSTRAINT UNIQUE behave the same way,
>> i.e. error out ?

> I haven't investigated this angle.  It seems more complex than just a
> simple bugfix, right?

Wouldn't that be throwing away the entire point of the ONLY behavior,
ie to allow the component indexes to be built one at a time, without
holding locks across the whole partition tree?

I'm having a hard time getting from "ONLY confuses me" to "nobody
should be allowed to do this".  I think there is a documentation
and UX issue here, but I don't see that there's anything wrong
with the functionality.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #15587: Partitions with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres 10, changing user by "set role {user};" doesn't use thatusers "default_transaction_isolation"