From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Date: | 2007-03-07 06:44:49 |
Message-ID: | d3c4af540703062244m2a2d5579r828f3c5c4d1648dd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hi,
On 3/7/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > But when I say
> > CREATE TABLE ( a int PRIMARY KEY, ... ) PARTITION blah ...
> > then I expect that the primary key will be enforced across all
> > partitions. We currently sidestep that issue by not offering seemingly
> > transparent partitioning. But if you are planning to offer that, the
> > unique index issue needs to be solved, and I see nothing in your plan
> > about that.
>
> Agreed, it needs to Just Work. I think it'd still be useful though
> if we only support auto-partitioning on the primary key, and that
> restriction avoids the indexing problem.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Sure, but as Chris mentioned earlier, wouldn't it be useful to maintain
uniqueness on a
partition-by-partition basis too?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-03-07 07:20:19 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-07 06:40:39 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-03-07 07:20:19 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-07 06:40:39 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |