Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tablesare not supported - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tablesare not supported
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoae_s=wyszzMWQJ4iHONFxB_LYJMBaatGZtLGfZqWOmPQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think, in general, that we should try to pick semantics that make a
>> partitioned table behave like an unpartitioned table, provided that
>> all triggers are defined on the partitioned table itself.
>
> Well, then we lose the property Alvaro wanted, namely that if an
> application chooses to insert directly into a partition, that's
> just an optimization that changes no behavior (as long as it picked
> the right partition).  Maybe this can be dodged by propagating
> parent trigger definitions to the children, but it's going to be
> complicated I'm afraid.

Isn't this basically what I already proposed in
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYQD1xSM7=XrY6rv2a-W43gKpcTH76F3nSp5o2SGWeCkA@mail.gmail.com
?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning with temp tables is broken
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tablesare not supported