From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bolaji Wahab <bolajiwahab23(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions |
Date: | 2024-12-05 01:38:34 |
Message-ID: | f68465771b664815c47d50bad814db2ba4e4e9ba.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 14:22 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> > > I have these two partitioned tables, with referential integrity. The tables
> > > are structured in such a way that we have 1 to 1 mapping between their
> > > partitions. This is achieved with a foreign key.
> >
> > I recommend that you don't create the foreign key constraint between the
> > partitioned tables, but between the individual partitions.
> >
> > That will make detaching and dropping partitions easier, and you will have
> > the same integrity guarantees.
>
> Yes, this is what I have done.
> But the whole point of declaring the foreign key constraint on the partitioned
> table is to have it automatically created on subsequent/future partitions.
Sure, but then you have to accept the disadvantage that it becomes more
difficult to detach partitions. I think it is less pain to create the
constraint on the partition level.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gerhard Wiesinger | 2024-12-05 06:16:45 | Updated Fedora 40 and Fedora 41 RPM packages of Pgpool-II 4.5.5 in the repo |
Previous Message | Bolaji Wahab | 2024-12-04 22:00:23 | Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions |