From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2021-03-21 18:22:00 |
Message-ID: | 20210321182200.GA3837@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Mar-21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 03:01:15PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > But note that it doesn't check if an existing constraint "implies" the new
> > > constraint - maybe it should.
> >
> > Hm, I'm not sure I want to do that, because that means that if I later
> > have to attach the partition again with the same partition bounds, then
> > I might have to incur a scan to recheck the constraint. I think we want
> > to make the new constraint be as tight as possible ...
>
> The ATTACH PARTITION checks if any existing constraint impilies the (proposed)
> partition bounds, not just if constraints are equal. So I'm suggesting to do
> the same here.
So if we do that on DETACH, what would happen on ATTACH?
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-21 18:23:38 | Re: Fix pg_upgrade to preserve datdba |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-03-21 18:18:59 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |