Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:42:35 -0300
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>
Subject: Re: Foreign keys and partitioned tables
Message-ID: <20180404194235.bdqsv3oj5cgzuwp6@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <32347.1522865050@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk

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