| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alex V(dot)" <in_flight(at)pclovers(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, tgl <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |
| Date: | 2019-06-06 17:03:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20190606170326.GA5550@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2019-Jun-06, Alex V. wrote:
> I think that your position about primary keys in partitional tables is
> not right.
>
> If we see regular table, one-field primary key is cross-table unique.
> In partitional tables for users view we MUST also seen unique
> one-field primary key because this is user requirement and another
> keys can destroy logic between regular and partitional tables and
> functionality of partitioning becomes useless.
> For administrators of table we not-MAY, but MUST see one-field unique
> primary key in cross-table realisation.
> All another realizations are plugging holes in a hurry and non-logical
> at global review of engine.
If you are saying that you think that Postgres should support primary
keys that don't necessarily overlap partition keys, then I agree with
you. Please send a patch to implement that capability.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Perumal Raj | 2019-06-06 17:25:57 | Re: Flood Warning message : user=[unknown],db=[unknown],host= WARNING: pg_getnameinfo_all() failed: Temporary failure in name resolution |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-06 16:06:10 | Re: postgres 11 issue? |