| From: | Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned table query question |
| Date: | 2007-12-10 19:17:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3132B56F-84CF-4188-9198-CECD9DDE0D32@khera.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 10, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
> You beat me to the punch on this one. I was wanting to use modulo
> operations for bin style partitioning as well, but this makes things
> pretty awkward as well as unintuitive. So, to the postgres gurus:
> What are the limitations of check constraints when used with
> constraint exclusion? Is this really the intended behavior?
>
/me too!
I have vague recollection of reading that the constraints on the child
tables needed to be free of computation (ie, just straight comparison
ranges) but I can't find that reference now.
But in my case, I can almost always pick the appropriate sub-table
from the application level anyway.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Wilhelmi | 2007-12-10 20:00:44 | Script to reset all sequence values in the a given DB? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Carsten Franke | 2007-12-10 19:15:37 | Unable to ALTER table after SELECT data from table |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-12-10 19:42:48 | Re: archive_command failures report confusing exit status |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-12-10 18:51:39 | Re: Release Note Changes |