From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: Global Unique Index |
Date: | 2022-11-18 15:14:44 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAhk5JNOJr-KONV3CmbqAGvy+SM0sVqKOQ_Sy9tsiZpLA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pá 18. 11. 2022 v 16:06 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
> Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> writes:
> > Do we need new syntax actually? I think that a global unique index can
> be created automatically instead of raising an error "unique constraint on
> partitioned table must include all partitioning columns"
>
> I'm not convinced that we want this feature at all: as far as I can see,
> it will completely destroy the benefits of making a partitioned table
> in the first place. But if we do want it, I don't think it should be
> so easy to create a global index by accident as that syntax approach
> would make it. I think there needs to be a pretty clear YES I WANT TO
> SHOOT MYSELF IN THE FOOT clause in the command.
>
isn't possible to have a partitioned index?
https://www.highgo.ca/2022/10/14/global-index-a-different-approach/
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maxim Orlov | 2022-11-18 15:16:04 | Re: [PoC] configurable out of disk space elog level |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-18 15:06:32 | Re: Patch: Global Unique Index |