Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
> DBAs tend to be belt *and* suspenders guys, no?
I rather know those admins with stupid looking faces who are wondering
why their transactions fail. Often enough, that can have a lot of
different reasons. Extending the set of possible traps doesn't seem like
a clever idea for those admins.
> I'd think a lot of them
> would want a table constraint, plus a partitioning rule that rejects
> anything outside the intended partitions.
I'm rather a fan of the DRY principle (don't repeat yourself). Because
having to maintain redundant constraints smells suspiciously like a
maintenance nightmare.
And where's the real use of making the database system check twice? Want
to protect against memory corruption in between the two checks, eh? :-)
Regards
Markus