From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:38:46 -0500
Message-ID: <28160.1576676326@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqGiGBgFFcL6YGKRqfX1-gYKmuLLG_JwU_UaSaX2J+jehQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+HiwqFUzjfj9HEsJtYWcr1SgQ_=iCAvQ=O2Sx6aQxoDu4OiHw@mail.gmail.com>
<5361.1576602769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+HiwqGiGBgFFcL6YGKRqfX1-gYKmuLLG_JwU_UaSaX2J+jehQ@mail.gmail.com>
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:12 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hm. Seems like the restrictions here ought to be just about the same
>> as on index columns, no?
> We also need to disallow self-referencing composite type in the case
> of partitioning, because otherwise it leads to infinite recursion
> shown in my first email.
My point is basically that CheckAttributeType already covers that
issue, as well as a lot of others. So why isn't the partitioning
code using it?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, amitlangote09@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys
In-Reply-To: <28160.1576676326@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox