| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: global index |
| Date: | 2017-08-24 18:21:51 |
| Message-ID: | 9ed540ed-3319-ed73-1bc8-2153c29eb036@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/24/2017 10:52 AM, Adam Brusselback wrote:
> My understanding is that global indexes allow foreign keys to work
> naturally with partitioned tables, or tables in an inheritance
> hierarchy. That is pretty big IMO, as it allows you to partition a
> table without making a trade-off in your database integrity.
It is, in fact the reason that even with 10 we don't really have
partitioning as much as syntactical sugar for partitioning. (Not trying
to take away from that, having the syntactical sugar is a huge first step).
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-08-24 18:22:17 | Re: SCRAM salt length |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-24 17:54:32 | More replication race conditions |