Yes, right. I wonder if the team sees an opportunity for some optimization here, supporting such a scenario efficiently. I can't think of any downsides to it but I may be missing something.
Cheers. On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:38 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 14:22 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote: > > > > I have these two partitioned tables, with referential integrity. The > tables > > > > are structured in such a way that we have 1 to 1 mapping between > their > > > > partitions. This is achieved with a foreign key. > > > > > > I recommend that you don't create the foreign key constraint between > the > > > partitioned tables, but between the individual partitions. > > > > > > That will make detaching and dropping partitions easier, and you will > have > > > the same integrity guarantees. > > > > Yes, this is what I have done. > > But the whole point of declaring the foreign key constraint on the > partitioned > > table is to have it automatically created on subsequent/future > partitions. > > Sure, but then you have to accept the disadvantage that it becomes more > difficult to detach partitions. I think it is less pain to create the > constraint on the partition level. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe >
