Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Hi,

Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't agree with that at all.  I can imagine plenty of situations
> where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should*
> be treated as an error.  For instance, consider timestamped observations
> --- data in the future is certainly bogus, and data further back than
> you want to deal with must be an entry error as well.

Isn't it better to have these constraints as table constraints, instead 
of burying them in the partitioning definition? Mixing those two 
concepts seems very wired to me.

Or am I missing any benefit of mixing them?

Regards

Markus