Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions

Yes, right. I wonder if the team sees an opportunity for some optimization
here, supporting such a scenario efficiently. I can't think of any
downsides to it but I may be missing something.

Cheers.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:38 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 14:22 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> > > > I have these two partitioned tables, with referential integrity. The
> tables
> > > > are structured in such a way that we have 1 to 1 mapping between
> their
> > > > partitions. This is achieved with a foreign key.
> > >
> > > I recommend that you don't create the foreign key constraint between
> the
> > > partitioned tables, but between the individual partitions.
> > >
> > > That will make detaching and dropping partitions easier, and you will
> have
> > > the same integrity guarantees.
> >
> > Yes, this is what I have done.
> > But the whole point of declaring the foreign key constraint on the
> partitioned
> > table is to have it automatically created on subsequent/future
> partitions.
>
> Sure, but then you have to accept the disadvantage that it becomes more
> difficult to detach partitions. I think it is less pain to create the
> constraint on the partition level.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>