Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 14:44 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Thanks, applied and backpatched all the way. Thanks for taking care of that! Yours, Laurenz Albe
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:24 AM Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:38 PM Laurenz Albe > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 13:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > It still reads a bit weird to me. How about the attached wording instead? > > > > Thanks! I am fine with your wording. > > Works for me too. Thanks, applied and backpatched all the way. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:38 PM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 13:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > It still reads a bit weird to me. How about the attached wording instead? > > Thanks! I am fine with your wording. Works for me too. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 13:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > It still reads a bit weird to me. How about the attached wording instead? Thanks! I am fine with your wording. Yours, Laurenz Albe
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:57 PM Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 18:49 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 PM Laurenz Albe > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > > > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? > > > > > > > > If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread > > > > is accessible via the commitfest app. > > > > > > The addition is long enough that it deserved to be outside of parentheses. > > > > > > I think it's worth mentioning the exception but in a way that avoids > > > repeating what's mentioned in the last paragraph of just the previous > > > section. I don't have brilliant ideas about how to rephrase it. > > > > > > Maybe "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint, other than PRIMARY and > > > UNIQUE, on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there > > > are no partitions. ...". > > > > I agree that the parenthesis is too long. I shortened it in the attached > > patch. Is that acceptable? > > It's still longer than the actual sentence :). I am fine with it if > somebody else finds it acceptable. It still reads a bit weird to me. How about the attached wording instead? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml index 22d04006ad..01b1d82b0d 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml @@ -4348,7 +4348,9 @@ ALTER INDEX measurement_city_id_logdate_key Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using ONLY -will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions +will result in an error for any constraints other than +UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY. +Instead, constraints on the partitions themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table) dropped.
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 18:49 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 PM Laurenz Albe > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? > > > > > > If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread > > > is accessible via the commitfest app. > > > > The addition is long enough that it deserved to be outside of parentheses. > > > > I think it's worth mentioning the exception but in a way that avoids > > repeating what's mentioned in the last paragraph of just the previous > > section. I don't have brilliant ideas about how to rephrase it. > > > > Maybe "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint, other than PRIMARY and > > UNIQUE, on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there > > are no partitions. ...". > > I agree that the parenthesis is too long. I shortened it in the attached > patch. Is that acceptable? It's still longer than the actual sentence :). I am fine with it if somebody else finds it acceptable. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 18:49 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 PM Laurenz Albe > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? > > > > If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread > > is accessible via the commitfest app. > > The addition is long enough that it deserved to be outside of parentheses. > > I think it's worth mentioning the exception but in a way that avoids > repeating what's mentioned in the last paragraph of just the previous > section. I don't have brilliant ideas about how to rephrase it. > > Maybe "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint, other than PRIMARY and > UNIQUE, on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there > are no partitions. ...". I agree that the parenthesis is too long. I shortened it in the attached patch. Is that acceptable? Yours, Laurenz Albe From 5a0f480e8ebf26be8dd84ca76dd9217bb7eea860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Laurenz Albe Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:07:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Doc: Fix omission in partitioning limitations UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints can be created on ONLY the partitioned table. We already had an example demonstrating that, but forgot to mention it in the documentation of the limits of partitioning. Author: Laurenz Albe Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/167299368731.659.16130012959616771...@wrigleys.postgresql.org --- doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml index 4490e82aa5..922766ef1c 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml @@ -4341,7 +4341,9 @@ ALTER INDEX measurement_city_id_logdate_key Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using ONLY -will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions +will result in an error (unless you use ONLY to +create UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY +constraints as shown above). Instead, constraints on the partitions themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table) dropped. -- 2.43.0
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 PM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? > > If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread > is accessible via the commitfest app. The addition is long enough that it deserved to be outside of parentheses. I think it's worth mentioning the exception but in a way that avoids repeating what's mentioned in the last paragraph of just the previous section. I don't have brilliant ideas about how to rephrase it. Maybe "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint, other than PRIMARY and UNIQUE, on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there are no partitions. ...". -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread is accessible via the commitfest app. Yours, Laurenz Albe From ecdce740586e33eeb394d47564b10f813896ff11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Laurenz Albe Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 16:38:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix omission in partitioning limitation documentation UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints can be created on ONLY the partitioned table. We already had an example demonstrating that, but forgot to mention it in the documentation of the limits of partitioning. Author: Laurenz Albe Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/167299368731.659.16130012959616771...@wrigleys.postgresql.org --- doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml index 6e92bbddd2..b4a75f9c8f 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml @@ -4282,7 +4282,10 @@ ALTER INDEX measurement_city_id_logdate_key Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using ONLY -will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions +will result in an error (the exception to this are +UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY +constraints, which will be created with an invalid index, as shown in +the example above). Instead, constraints on the partitions themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table) dropped. -- 2.39.0
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:28 PM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 16:40 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is > > > supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using > > > ONLY will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions > > > themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table) > > > dropped." This seems in contradiction to the example involving adding a > > > unique constraint while minimizing locking at the bottom of "5.11.2.2. > > > Partition Maintenance", which seems to run fine on my local Pg instance: > > > > > > This technique can be used with UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints too; > > > the > > > indexes are created implicitly when the constraint is created. Example: > > > > No, that is actually an omission in the documentation. > > > > The attached patch tries to improve that. > > I am sending a reply to the hackers list, so that I can add the patch to the > commitfest. May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well? -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 10:00 PM shihao zhong wrote: > > That looks good to me! > > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer I have reviewed the patch and it is working fine. Thanks and Regards, Shubham Khanna.
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
That looks good to me! The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
Re: Postgres Partitions Limitations (5.11.2.3)
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 16:40 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint on only the partitioned table is > > supported as long as there are no partitions. Once partitions exist, using > > ONLY will result in an error. Instead, constraints on the partitions > > themselves can be added and (if they are not present in the parent table) > > dropped." This seems in contradiction to the example involving adding a > > unique constraint while minimizing locking at the bottom of "5.11.2.2. > > Partition Maintenance", which seems to run fine on my local Pg instance: > > > > This technique can be used with UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints too; the > > indexes are created implicitly when the constraint is created. Example: > > No, that is actually an omission in the documentation. > > The attached patch tries to improve that. I am sending a reply to the hackers list, so that I can add the patch to the commitfest. Yours, Laurenz Albe
