From: | John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More on my partitioning problem |
Date: | 2020-11-02 15:38:39 |
Message-ID: | F3E3A375-CF42-4EFD-8C89-151953481360@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thank, Laurenz ( again ) don’t know why I didn’t think of that. 😎
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 07:40 -0500, John Scalia wrote:
>> I created a UNIQUE INDEX on the new base table using the original primary key
>> and the partitioning key. So far, so good. But doing an ALTER TABLE ADD PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX,
>> is not supported. So. being that I already have a unique index here, does it
>> really matter if I do not declare a primary key here? Otherwise, how would I go
>> about creating a primary key on this partitioned table?
>
> Don't create a unique index and then use it to define a primary key constraint,
> create the primary key directly:
>
> ALTER TABLE part ADD PRIMARY KEY (id, part_key);
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz
> --
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Scalia | 2020-11-02 16:22:30 | Maybe a possible bug in the partitioning code? |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-11-02 14:34:49 | Re: More on my partitioning problem |