From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Date: | 2016-11-24 06:32:21 |
Message-ID: | cd0d4d19-f72b-6ddb-5033-556501cb3c48@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/11/24 15:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/11/24 14:35, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> IIUC, it should allow "create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary
>>> key) ...", (a primary key) is nothing but "column_name
>>> column_constraint", but here's what happens
>>> create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary key) for values from (0) to (100);
>>> ERROR: syntax error at or near "primary"
>>> LINE 1: create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary key) for value...
>>
>> You have to specify column constraints using the keywords WITH OPTIONS,
>> like below:
>>
>> create table p1 partition of p (
>> a with options primary key
>> ) for values in (1);
>
> Oh, sorry for not noticing it. You are right. Why do we need "with
> option" there? Shouldn't user be able to specify just "a primary key";
> it's not really an "option", it's a constraint.
I just adopted the existing syntax for specifying column/table constraints
of a table created with CREATE TABLE OF type_name.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-11-24 06:40:09 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-11-24 06:10:54 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |