Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: navbarry(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (
Date: 2023-10-27 06:58:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 16:40 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is
> > supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using
> > ONLY will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions
> > themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table)
> > dropped." This seems in contradiction to the example involving adding a
> > unique constraint while minimizing locking at the bottom of "
> > Partition Maintenance", which seems to run fine on my local Pg instance:
> >
> > This technique can be used with UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints too; the
> > indexes are created implicitly when the constraint is created. Example:
> No, that is actually an omission in the documentation.
> The attached patch tries to improve that.

I am sending a reply to the hackers list, so that I can add the patch to the commitfest.

Laurenz Albe

In response to


Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-27 07:03:04 Re: Version 14/15 documentation Section "Alter Default Privileges"
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-27 06:48:49 Re: unnest multirange, returned order

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xiang Gao 2023-10-27 07:01:10 RE: CRC32C Parallel Computation Optimization on ARM
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-10-27 06:52:25 Re: "38.10.10. Shared Memory and LWLocks" may require a clarification