Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the question that's begged here is exactly why it's okay to remove
>> the trigger and dependency link despite the fact that the constraint needs
>> it. I suppose the answer is that we'll subsequently insert a new trigger
>> implementing the same constraint (and internally-linked to it)? That
>> information is what I'd like to have in the comment.
> Well, the answer is that the trigger is no longer needed. This is an
> action trigger, i.e. it's attached to the referenced relation; and the
> action is making an independent table become a partition. Since the
> partition is reachable by the action trigger that goes through the
> parent table, we no longer need the action trigger that goes directly to
> the partition.
Oh ... then why don't we go ahead and get rid of the constraint entry,
too?
regards, tom lane
