Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't agree with that at all.  I can imagine plenty of situations
>> where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should*
>> be treated as an error.

> Isn't it better to have these constraints as table constraints, instead 
> of burying them in the partitioning definition? Mixing those two 
> concepts seems very wired to me.

DBAs tend to be belt *and* suspenders guys, no?  I'd think a lot of them
would want a table constraint, plus a partitioning rule that rejects
anything outside the intended partitions.
        regards, tom lane