| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2023-02-27 15:50:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaJJUZF41r-5NyEb2mMNXaT6Rf4FK=BWdRun0S758dXDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This made me wonder if this could be a usable solution at all, but
> after thinking for awhile, I don't see how the claim about foreign key
> constraints is anything but FUD. pg_dump/pg_restore have sufficient
> dependency logic to prevent that from happening. I think we can just
> drop the "or perhaps ..." clause here, and tolerate the possible
> inefficiency as better than failing.
Right, but isn't that dependency logic based around the fact that the
inserts are targeting the original partition? Like, suppose partition
A has a foreign key that is not present on partition B. A row that is
originally in partition B gets rerouted into partition A. It must now
satisfy the foreign key constraint when, previously, that was
unnecessary.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-02-27 16:06:22 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-27 15:45:06 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |