On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 10:09 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 11/29/22 17:29, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 13:58 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > > > I disagree. A user does not need to know that a table is partitionned, > > > and if the user wants a unique constraint on the table then making them > > > type an extra word to get it is just annoying. > > > > Hmm. But if I created a primary key without thinking too hard about it, > > only to discover later that dropping old partitions has become a problem, > > I would not be too happy either. > > I have not looked at this patch, but my understanding of its design is > the "global" part of the index just makes sure to check a unique index > on each partition. I don't see from that how dropping old partitions > would be a problem.
Right, I should have looked closer. But, according to the parallel discussion, ATTACH PARTITION might be a problem. A global index is likely to be a footgun one way or the other, so I think it should at least have a safety on (CREATE PARTITIONED GLOBAL INDEX or something). Yours, Laurenz Albe
