Subject: Re: BUG #15212: Default values in partition tables don't work as
 expected and allow NOT NULL violation
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <20181112140051.yv5m77esq5jz6rkg@alvherre.pgsql>
 <5662.1542040384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Strobel?= <juergen+postgresql@strobel.info>
Message-ID: <ebcf4a32-cfee-8a8f-525d-6ceaa72c75d8@strobel.info>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 00:06:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5662.1542040384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-11-12 17:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
> 

I think I missed something, what are the *introduced* logical problems?
Apart from implementation issues the only logical problems I see are if
you allow to change defaults of the partition key columns, and these are
problematic (nonsensical really) in either case.

Regards,
Jürgen