Re: partitioning and identity column

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: partitioning and identity column
Date: 2023-12-21 11:02:02
Message-ID: c49b1a72-9e98-48f1-a1c6-3996fc829cba@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19.12.23 11:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> At this point I am looking for opinions on the above rules and whether
> the implementation is on the right track.

This looks on the right track to me.

> 0001 - change to get_partition_ancestors() prologue. Can be reviewed
> and committed independent of other patches.

I committed that.

> 0004 - An attached partition inherits identity property and uses the
> underlying sequence for direct INSERTs. When inheriting the identity
> property it should also inherit the NOT NULL constraint, but that's a
> TODO in this patch. We expect matching NOT NULL constraints to be
> present in the partition being attached. I am not sure whether we want
> to add NOT NULL constraints automatically for an identity column. We
> require a NOT NULL constraint to be present when adding identity
> property to a column. The behavior in the patch seems to be consistent
> with this.

I think it makes sense that the NOT NULL constraint must be added
manually before attaching is allowed.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-12-21 11:25:32 Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2023-12-21 10:58:19 Re: Add --check option to pgindent