On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:59:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
/tmp/mutt-mayon-1000-26043-945be079d938129298
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Paul Jones <pbj@cmicdo.com> wrote:
> > Is this a bug in Postgres 10b4? Looks like neither partition ranges
> > nor check constraints are honored in 10b4 when inserting into
> > partitions that are foreign tables.
>
> Here is what you are looking for in the documentation:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-createforeigntable.html
> Constraints on foreign tables (such as CHECK or NOT NULL clauses) are
> not enforced by the core PostgreSQL system, and most foreign data
> wrappers do not attempt to enforce them either; that is, the
> constraint is simply assumed to hold true. There would be little point
> in such enforcement since it would only apply to rows inserted or
> updated via the foreign table, and not to rows modified by other
> means, such as directly on the remote server. Instead, a constraint
> attached to a foreign table should represent a constraint that is
> being enforced by the remote server.
Thank you for the pointer... it is clear that I just didn't read far enough.
>
> > Here is a nearly shovel-ready example. Just replace with your
> > servers/passwords.
> >
> > -- --------------------------
> > -- Server 2
> > -- --------------------------
> >
> > CREATE DATABASE cluster;
> > \c cluster
> >
> > CREATE TABLE foo_10000 (
> > id INT NOT NULL,
> > name TEXT
> > );
>
> So here I think that you should add a CHECK constraint to this table,
> and that the behavior of your example works as expected.
I will try this, thanks!
> --
> Michael
.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general