On 2024-09-27 18:37:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Peter J. Holzer" writes:
> > As you can see, adding the primary key takes just as much time as
> > creating the unique index. So it doesn't look like PostgreSQL is able to
> > take advantage of the existing index (which makes sense since it still
>
"Peter J. Holzer" writes:
> As you can see, adding the primary key takes just as much time as
> creating the unique index. So it doesn't look like PostgreSQL is able to
> take advantage of the existing index (which makes sense since it still
> has to create a new index).
No, but you can attach an
On 2024-09-27 07:26:45 +0530, Aditya Singh wrote:
> we plan to migrate from the int4 ID column to an int8 ID column.
>
> The plan involves renaming the int8 column to the id column and setting it as
> the primary key. However, this process will require downtime, which may be
> substantial in a pro
Hi,
Your approach to migrating the ID column from int4 to int8 with minimal
downtime is generally sound but in my option, consider the following also:
- Consider using PostgreSQL's CONCURRENTLY option when creating the
unique index to avoid locking the entire table
- Make sure to first
I am just contacting you to talk about a current issue with our database.
We have run out of a positive sequence in one of our tables and are now
operating with negative sequences. To address this, we plan to migrate from
the int4 ID column to an int8 ID column.
The plan involves renaming the int8
