Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Apr-21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM that this is a bug, not a feature: if there's any point at
>> all to saying ONLY in this context, it's that we're not supposed
>> to be doing anything as expensive as adding a new constraint to
>> a child partition. No? So I think that this should have failed.
> Hmm, yeah, this is not intentional and I agree that it shouldn't be
> doing this.
>> We need to require the partition(s) to already have attnotnull set.
> Sounds good to me, yes.
> Do you want me to see about this?
It's tied up in the other patch I'm working on, so I can deal with it.
regards, tom lane
