On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, the question that's begged here is exactly why it's okay to
> >> remove the trigger and dependency link despite the fact that the
> >> constraint needs it. I suppose the answer is that we'll
> >> subsequently insert a new trigger implementing the same constraint
> >> (and internally-linked to it)? That information is what I'd like
> >> to have in the comment.
>
> > Well, the answer is that the trigger is no longer needed. This is
> > an action trigger, i.e. it's attached to the referenced relation;
> > and the action is making an independent table become a partition.
> > Since the partition is reachable by the action trigger that goes
> > through the parent table, we no longer need the action trigger that
> > goes directly to the partition.
>
> Oh ... then why don't we go ahead and get rid of the constraint entry,
> too?
Because each partition has its own pg_constraint entry. (Otherwise
there's no place to put the column numbers into -- they can differ from
partition to partition, remember.) The only thing we do is mark it as
child of the parent's one.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services