Thanks for the patch.
Amit Langote wrote:
> I mentioned this case at [1] and had a WIP patch to address that. Please
> find it attached here. It is to be applied on top of both of your patches.
In this bit:
> + /*
> + * When specific arbiter indexes requested, only ex
Amit Langote wrote:
> Have you considered what happens when ON CONFLICT code tries to depend on
> such an index (a partitioned unique index)?
Not yet, but it was on my list of things to fix. Thanks for working on
it -- I'll be reviewing this soon.
> +create table parted_conflict_test_2 partitio
Hi Alvaro,
On 2017/12/23 6:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm giving this patch its own thread for mental sanity, but this is
> essentially what already posted in [1], plus some doc fixes. This patch
> depends on the main "local partitioned indexes" in that thread, last
> version of whic
Hello,
I'm giving this patch its own thread for mental sanity, but this is
essentially what already posted in [1], plus some doc fixes. This patch
depends on the main "local partitioned indexes" in that thread, last
version of which is at [2].
I also added a mechanism to set the constraints in p
