| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, phil(dot)bayer(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 11: Table Partitioning and Primary Keys |
| Date: | 2019-07-09 06:49:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20190709064924.GA17321@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:10:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isn't it the other way around, that the partition key column(s) must
> be
> included in the primary key? Maybe I'm confused, but it seems like
> we couldn't enforce PK uniqueness otherwise.
Yes you are right. The full column list of the partition key needs to
be included in the constraint, but that's not true the other way
around.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-09 06:51:40 | Re: Postgres 11: Table Partitioning and Primary Keys |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-09 06:34:48 | Re: Postgres 11: Table Partitioning and Primary Keys |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-09 06:51:40 | Re: Postgres 11: Table Partitioning and Primary Keys |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-07-09 06:40:37 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |