On 2018/07/17 13:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Feb-19, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>> As an aside, adding a link to "Data Definiton/Table Partitioning" from at
>> least CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION BY; and swapping "PARTITION BY" and
>> "PARTITION OF" in the Parameters section of that page - on
On 2018-Feb-19, David G. Johnston wrote:
> As an aside, adding a link to "Data Definiton/Table Partitioning" from at
> least CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION BY; and swapping "PARTITION BY" and
> "PARTITION OF" in the Parameters section of that page - one must partition
> by a table before one can parti
Pedersen ;
Pg Hackers
Subject: Re: unique indexes on partitioned tables
Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote:
Hi,
> I tried this feature with the latest snapshot. When I executed the
> following SQL statement, multiple primary keys were created on the
> partition.
> Is this the intended behavior?
Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote:
Hi,
> I tried this feature with the latest snapshot. When I executed the
> following SQL statement, multiple primary keys were created on the
> partition.
> Is this the intended behavior?
It turns out that the error check for duplicate PKs is only invoked if
you tell t
David G. Johnston wrote:
> Something like:
>
> When establishing a unique constraint for a multi-level partition hierarchy
> all the "partition by" columns of the target partitioned table, as well as
> those of all its descendant partitioned tables, must be included in the
> constraint definition
David Rowley wrote:
> On 20 February 2018 at 09:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Modified Files
> > --
> > doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml | 9 +-
>
> Attached is a very small fix to a small error this patch created in the docs.
Pushed, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrera
Hi,
Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote:
> I tried this feature with the latest snapshot. When I executed the
> following SQL statement, multiple primary keys were created on the
> partition. Is this the intended behavior?
Hahah. Is that a serious question? Of course it isn't. I'll fix it:
> -- test
>
[mailto:langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 6:24 PM
To: Alvaro Herrera ; Peter Eisentraut
; Jaime Casanova
Cc: Jesper Pedersen ; Pg Hackers
Subject: Re: unique indexes on partitioned tables
Hi.
On 2018/02/20 5:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I pushed this now, wit
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Many thanks for reading through it!
>
> David G. Johnston wrote:
> > I found the following change to be confusing.
> [...]
> > I was expecting the doc for ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX to note the
> > limitation explicitly - in lieu of the ab
Many thanks for reading through it!
David G. Johnston wrote:
> I found the following change to be confusing.
[...]
> I was expecting the doc for ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX to note the
> limitation explicitly - in lieu of the above paragraph.
Agreed. I moved the note to ADD CONSTRAINT and added
Hi.
On 2018/02/20 5:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I pushed this now, with fixes for the last few comments there were.
I noticed with the commit that, while ON CONFLICT (conflict_target) DO
UPDATE gives a less surprising error message by catching it in the parser,
ON CONFLICT (conflict_target) DO NO
der), would be helpful.
David J.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Allow UNIQUE indexes on partitioned tables
>
> If we restrict unique constraints on partitioned tables so that they
> must always include the partition key, then our standard approach to
>
I pushed this now, with fixes for the last few comments there were.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't understand the variable name "third". I don't see a "first" or
> "second" nearby.
Hah. That was referring to variables "myself" and "referenced". I
changed the variable name to "parentConstr"
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Hi Álvaro,
>
> attached a tiny patch (on top of yours) that silence two "variables
> uninitilized" warnings.
Thanks! Applied.
> also noted that if you:
>
> """
> create table t1(i int) partition by hash (i);
> create table t1_0 partition of t1 for values with (modulus
On 12 February 2018 at 15:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks, Peter, Jesper, Amit, for reviewing the patch. Replying to
> all review comments at once:
>
[... v5 of patch attached ...]
Hi Álvaro,
attached a tiny patch (on top of yours) that silence two "variables
uninitilized" warnin
Here is a mini-patch on top of yours to fix a few cosmetic things.
I don't understand the variable name "third". I don't see a "first" or
"second" nearby.
I find some of the columns in pg_constraint confusing. For a primary
key on a partitioned table, for the PK on the partition I get
conisloc
Hello,
Thanks, Peter, Jesper, Amit, for reviewing the patch. Replying to
all review comments at once:
Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Maybe add a test case to indexing.sql that highlights that hash indexes
> doesn't support UNIQUE; although not unique to partitioned indexes.
I'm not sure about this.
On 1/26/18 13:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Other than that, this looks pretty good to me. A logical extension of
> the previous partitioned index patch.
Moved to next CF.
Seems close to ready.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, R
On 2018/01/29 16:28, Amit Langote wrote:
> create table p (a int, b int) partition by list (a);
> create table p1 partition of p for values in (1) partition by range (b);
> create table p11 partition of p1 for values from (1) to (10);
> create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);
>
> create
Hi Alvaro.
On 2018/01/23 7:55, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Version 4 of this patch, rebased on today's master.
With the latest patch, I noticed what I think is an unintended behavior.
create table p (a int, b int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for val
On 1/22/18 17:55, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Version 4 of this patch, rebased on today's master.
+ if (key->partattrs[i] == 0)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+errmsg("unsupporte
Hi Alvaro,
On 01/22/2018 05:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Version 4 of this patch, rebased on today's master.
Passes make check-world.
Maybe add a test case to indexing.sql that highlights that hash indexes
doesn't support UNIQUE; although not unique to partitioned i
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Version 4 of this patch, rebased on today's master.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>From 1a02e7f359c94e5db0bb069666b950775cd3e2af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alvaro Her
Version 4 of this patch, rebased on today's master.
The main change is in dependency handling for the constraints: you now
can't drop a constraint from a partition, if it's attached to a
constraint in the parent (you can't drop indexes from under the
constraints either, but that was true in previo
On 29 December 2017 at 23:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This is the patch series for UNIQUE / PRIMARY KEY indexes on partitioned
> tables. This is on top of the patch in
> https://postgr.es/m/20171229175930.3aew7lzwd5w6m2x6@alvherre.pgsql
> but I included it here as 0001 for simplicity. (Don't rev
25 matches
Mail list logo
