Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I second that - partitioning on some kind of timestamp field is a common
usecase here too ...
Stefan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
