Re: docs about FKs referencing partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Paul A Jungwirth
Subject Re: docs about FKs referencing partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CA+renyWhTKaoOT+5bekN+NO-v-idv4NpGHEncnn7Ke7CgKPOBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: docs about FKs referencing partitioned tables  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: docs about FKs referencing partitioned tables  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:49 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Well, the point I would like to outline is that section 5.11.2 about
> declarative partitioning and 5.11.3 about partitioning with
> inheritance treat about two separate, independent partitioning
> methods.  So removing the paragraph from the declarative partitioning
> section mentioning foreign keys referencing partitioned tables is
> fine, because that's not the case anymore...
> [snip]
> ...  However you are adding a paragraph for something which is
> completely unrelated to the issue we are trying to fix.  If I were to
> add something, I think that I would be more general than what you are
> trying here and just mention a link to the previous paragraph about
> the caveats of inheritance as they apply to single table members of an
> inheritance tree and not a full set:
> "Indexes and foreign key constraint apply to single tables and not
> their inheritance children, hence they have some <link>caveats</> to
> be aware of."

That seems reasonable to me. Here is a patch file if that is helpful
(minor typo corrected).

Yours,
Paul

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: How to know referenced sub-fields of a composite type?
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: docs about FKs referencing partitioned tables