From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Date: | 2007-03-07 07:20:19 |
Message-ID: | 45EE67B3.7020101@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>> But when I say
>>> CREATE TABLE ( a int PRIMARY KEY, ... ) PARTITION blah ...
>>> then I expect that the primary key will be enforced across all
>>> partitions. We currently sidestep that issue by not offering
>>> seemingly transparent partitioning. But if you are planning to offer
>>> that, the unique index issue needs to be solved, and I see nothing in
>>> your plan about that.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, it needs to Just Work. I think it'd still be useful though
>> if we only support auto-partitioning on the primary key, and that
>> restriction avoids the indexing problem.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe. The most obvious use for automatic partitioning that I can think
> of would be based in the value of a timestamptz field rather than any
> PK. Of course I tend to work more in the OLTP field than in DW type
> apps, where other considerations might apply.
I second that - partitioning on some kind of timestamp field is a common
usecase here too ...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-03-07 07:22:04 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-07 06:44:49 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-03-07 07:49:53 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-07 06:44:49 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |