On 3/31/18 18:21, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Yeah, I started by putting what I thought was going to be just ALTER > TABLE in that test, then moved to the other file and added what I > thought were more complete tests there and failed to move stuff to > alter_table. Honestly, I think these should mostly all belong in > foreign_key,
right > <para> > - Partitioned tables do not support <literal>EXCLUDE</literal> or > - <literal>FOREIGN KEY</literal> constraints; however, you can define > - these constraints on individual partitions. > + Partitioned tables do not support <literal>EXCLUDE</literal> > constraints; > + however, you can define these constraints on individual partitions. > + Also, while it's possible to define <literal>PRIMARY KEY</literal> > + constraints on partitioned tables, it is not supported to create > foreign > + keys cannot that reference them. This restriction will be lifted in a This doesn't read correctly. > + future release. > </para> > - tables and permanent tables. > + tables and permanent tables. Also note that while it is permitted to > + define a foreign key on a partitioned table, declaring a foreign key > + that references a partitioned table is not allowed. > <para> Maybe use "possible" or "supported" instead of "allowed" and "permitted" in this and similar cases. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
