Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
> <nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users shooting
>> themselves in the foot. It can be easy to conjure up a
>> parent-only-constraint that does not gel too well with its children. And
>> that's precisely why this feature was added in the first place..
> Yeah, but I think we need to take that chance. At the very least, we
> need to support the equivalent of a non-inherited CHECK (false) on
> parent tables.
No, the right solution is to invent an actual concept of partitioned
tables, not to keep adding ever-weirder frammishes to inheritance so
that it can continue to provide an awkward, poorly-performing emulation
of them.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
