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
wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wa
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.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 14:22 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe 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
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.
>
> CREATE TABLE parent (
> partition
Hi team,
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.
```
CREATE TABLE parent (
partition_date date NOT NULL,
id uuid NOT NULL,
extern
