Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Hi,

Tom Lane wrote:
> DBAs tend to be belt *and* suspenders guys, no?

I rather know those admins with stupid looking faces who are wondering 
why their transactions fail. Often enough, that can have a lot of 
different reasons. Extending the set of possible traps doesn't seem like 
a clever idea for those admins.

> I'd think a lot of them
> would want a table constraint, plus a partitioning rule that rejects
> anything outside the intended partitions.

I'm rather a fan of the DRY principle (don't repeat yourself). Because 
having to maintain redundant constraints smells suspiciously like a 
maintenance nightmare.

And where's the real use of making the database system check twice? Want 
to protect against memory corruption in between the two checks, eh? :-)

Regards

Markus