Re: --//pgsql partitioning-///--------------------

From: "Ow Mun Heng" <ow(dot)mun(dot)heng(at)wdc(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: --//pgsql partitioning-///--------------------
Date: 2009-11-05 01:16:12
Message-ID: D1109E8B2FB53A45BDB60F8145905CE904B5359A@wdmyexbe03.my.asia.wdc.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Vick Khera

> Here are two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) options for you:

>1) use triggers/rules on the master table and do all your inserts
>directed to it and have the trigger/rule do the right thing
>2) write your insert/update/delete statements to use the correct
>inherited table directly, and write a trigger on the master that
>denies any inserts.

#2 would have better performance than #1.

Use #1 only if you have no choice.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2009-11-05 01:45:55 Re: warm standby resume and take online problems
Previous Message silly8888 2009-11-05 00:32:05 error caused by FOREIGN KEY on composite type