| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj(dot)sf(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition |
| Date: | 2020-09-29 23:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | 727064.1601421690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 12:08, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> "Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
>>> partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns.
> I didn't go with the same wording. The reason was that I didn't feel
> the word "constraint" had to be mentioned twice.
> I won't object if you or Alvaro want to keep Alvaro's suggestion though.
I kind of like Alvaro's wording because it helps to reinforce the point
that pkeys are a type of unique constraint. If you dislike repeating
"constraints", perhaps we could go with something like
Unique constraints (and hence primary keys) on partitioned tables ...
I'm not hugely against your wording though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-09-29 23:22:25 | Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-09-29 23:13:56 | Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition |