Re: Declarative Range Partitioning Postgres 11

On 10/8/19 12:33 PM, Michael Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM Shatamjeev Dewan <sdewan(at)nbsps(dot)com
> <mailto:sdewan(at)nbsps(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> In this case , I always need to include partition key(date)  in
> primary key ( if I have a primary key defined on non partition key
> column e.g id (in my case), to make it a composite primary key (id,
> date). This would allow duplicate id with different date,which is not
> desirable .
>
>
> If you are generating the ID with a sequence, there isn't any real world
> likelihood of conflict, but I do understand your concern in terms of
> enforcing data integrity. Other than creating a custom stored procedure
> that functions as a primary key constraint, I don't know of any way around
> that.
>
> Let's take a step back... why do you think you need to partition at all?
> And why partition by the date/timestamp/timestamptz field?

Because archiving old is (well, /should be/) easier that way.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.