On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:59:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: /tmp/mutt-mayon-1000-26043-945be079d938129298 > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Paul Jones <p...@cmicdo.com> wrote: > > Is this a bug in Postgres 10b4? Looks like neither partition ranges > > nor check constraints are honored in 10b4 when inserting into > > partitions that are foreign tables. > > Here is what you are looking for in the documentation: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-createforeigntable.html > Constraints on foreign tables (such as CHECK or NOT NULL clauses) are > not enforced by the core PostgreSQL system, and most foreign data > wrappers do not attempt to enforce them either; that is, the > constraint is simply assumed to hold true. There would be little point > in such enforcement since it would only apply to rows inserted or > updated via the foreign table, and not to rows modified by other > means, such as directly on the remote server. Instead, a constraint > attached to a foreign table should represent a constraint that is > being enforced by the remote server.
Thank you for the pointer... it is clear that I just didn't read far enough. > > > Here is a nearly shovel-ready example. Just replace with your > > servers/passwords. > > > > -- -------------------------- > > -- Server 2 > > -- -------------------------- > > > > CREATE DATABASE cluster; > > \c cluster > > > > CREATE TABLE foo_10000 ( > > id INT NOT NULL, > > name TEXT > > ); > > So here I think that you should add a CHECK constraint to this table, > and that the behavior of your example works as expected. I will try this, thanks! > -- > Michael . -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
