From: | Jorge Torralba <jorge(dot)torralba(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PAscal L <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is there a work around for partition key needed for constraint |
Date: | 2018-10-25 22:54:19 |
Message-ID: | CACut7uR3EVpmmjwd=1xPMsH+UiuaidX1KDho1HZao+dvs_ck0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks for the suggestion. But there is one slight problem :)
DETAIL: Partitioned tables cannot have BEFORE / FOR EACH ROW triggers.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:36 PM legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais wrote
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:02:46 -0700 (MST)
> >
> > It seems to me you lack some locking to avoid duplicates. cf. my blog
> post
> > we
> > discussed few weeks ago.
> >
> > (btw, sorry, I somehow missed your answers on previous thread b/c
> > holidays).
>
> Yes you are right, I forgot to speak about locking, and performance
> degradation
> with the number of partitions ... as discussed in the previous thread ;o)
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from:
> http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-admin-f2076596.html
>
>
--
Thanks,
Jorge Torralba
----------------------------
Note: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not print,
copy, retransmit, disseminate or otherwise use the information. Please
indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error and
delete the copy you received. Thank You.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | legrand legrand | 2018-10-26 05:33:57 | Re: Is there a work around for partition key needed for constraint |
Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2018-10-25 21:36:02 | Re: Is there a work around for partition key needed for constraint |