> > The patch that Amul and I wrote both achieve the same result.
> > The approach that Amul took builds a list of constraint OIDs,
> > which could grow with the number of partitions and foreign keys
> > on those partitions. Maybe not a big deal?
> Nope, not a big deal. It would be a big deal if we were talking about
> 268 million partitions (>1GB palloc size), but that's impractical for
> other reasons.
that's fair.
Patch looks good to me, but I am not sure about this part of the comment:
"Only the topmost one is to be considered here; the child constraints
must be left alone,"
In this case, none of the pg_constraint entries are actually considered. right?
Regards,
Sami
