From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen?= Strobel <juergen+postgresql@strobel.info>,
        Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15212: Default values in partition tables don't work as
 expected and allow NOT NULL violation
In-reply-to: <20181112140051.yv5m77esq5jz6rkg@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20181112140051.yv5m77esq5jz6rkg@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:00:51 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5661.1542040384.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:33:04 -0500
Message-ID: <5662.1542040384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One of the guiding principles that I think we should hold for
> partitioning is that operating directly into the partition should be
> seen as only an optimization compared to inserting into the parent table
> -- thus it should not behave differently.  Applying different default
> values depending on where you're inserting into goes counter to that
> principle.

I'm not entirely convinced that I buy that argument, especially not in
a case like this where it introduces logical inconsistencies where there
otherwise wouldn't be any.

			regards, tom lane