From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Date: | 2007-03-06 20:34:53 |
Message-ID: | 45EDD06D.6010307@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
>> But when I say
>> CREATE TABLE ( a int PRIMARY KEY, ... ) PARTITION blah ...
>> then I expect that the primary key will be enforced across all
>> partitions. We currently sidestep that issue by not offering seemingly
>> transparent partitioning. But if you are planning to offer that, the
>> unique index issue needs to be solved, and I see nothing in your plan
>> about that.
>>
>
> Agreed, it needs to Just Work. I think it'd still be useful though
> if we only support auto-partitioning on the primary key, and that
> restriction avoids the indexing problem.
>
>
Maybe. The most obvious use for automatic partitioning that I can think
of would be based in the value of a timestamptz field rather than any
PK. Of course I tend to work more in the OLTP field than in DW type
apps, where other considerations might apply.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-03-06 21:05:56 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-03-06 20:10:26 | Re: PostgreSQL - 'SKYLINE OF' clause added! |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-03-06 21:05:56 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-03-06 19:04:41 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |