Re: Foreign keys and partitioned tables
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-04T19:42:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > Thanks, pushed. > > This has broken the selinux regression tests, evidently because it > removed ONLY from the emitted FK test queries. While we could change > the expected results, I would first like to hear a defense of why that > change is a good idea. It seems highly likely to be the wrong thing > for non-partitioned cases. Yeah, there ain't one, because this was a reversal mistake. I restored that ONLY. (There were two ONLYs in the original query; I initially removed both, and then went over the file and included them conditionally on the table not being a partitioned one, based on review comments. In this line I restored one conditionally but failed to realize I should have been restoring the other unconditionally.) Pushed a fix blind. Let's see if it appeases rhinoceros. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Restore erroneously removed ONLY from PK check
- 7d7c99790b2a 11.0 landed
-
Foreign keys on partitioned tables
- 3de241dba86f 11.0 landed
-
Don't clone internal triggers to partitions
- 851f4b4e1430 11.0 landed
-
Pass correct TupDesc to ri_NullCheck() in Assert
- cd5005bc12d0 11.0 landed