| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2021-03-21 18:14:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20210321181420.GC11765@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 03:01:15PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > But note that it doesn't check if an existing constraint "implies" the new
> > constraint - maybe it should.
>
> Hm, I'm not sure I want to do that, because that means that if I later
> have to attach the partition again with the same partition bounds, then
> I might have to incur a scan to recheck the constraint. I think we want
> to make the new constraint be as tight as possible ...
The ATTACH PARTITION checks if any existing constraint impilies the (proposed)
partition bounds, not just if constraints are equal. So I'm suggesting to do
the same here.
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-03-21 18:18:59 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-03-21 18:06:45 | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |