David Rowley schrieb am 12.07.2021 um 02:57:
> Generally, there's not all that much consensus in the community that
> this would be a good feature to have. Why do people want to use
> partitioning? Many people do it so that they can quickly remove data
> that's no longer required with a simple
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 12:37, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> personally, I feel this design is very bad compared to other DB servers.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here as you didn't quote
it, but my guess is you mean our lack of global index support.
Generally, there's not all that much c
> On Jul 11, 2021, at 17:36, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
>
> personally, I feel this design is very bad compared to other DB servers.
Patches accepted. The issue is that in order to have a partition-set-wide
unique index, the system would have to lock the unique index entries in *all*
partitions, n
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 03:32:46AM +, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> My apologies for making confusion with new thread. Yes its same issue related
> to earlier post.
> I was trying to figure out how to ensure unique values for columns
> (billing_account_guid, ban). If i add partition key to constraint
personally, I feel this design is very bad compared to other DB servers.
> If the goal is to make sure there is only one (billing_account_uid, ban) in
> any partition regardless of date, you'll need to do something more >
> sophisticated to make sure that two sessions don't insert an
> (billing
