have to be rebuilt. But,
anyway, such operations could be done "concurrently" or "online"...
Michel SALAIS
-Message d'origine-
De : David Rowley
Envoyé : lundi 12 juillet 2021 02:57
À : Nagaraj Raj
Cc : Christophe Pettus ; pgsql-performa...@postgresql.org
Objet :
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
> On Jul 8, 2021, at 20:32, 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 , i
Subject: Re: Partition column should be part of PK
On 2021-Jul-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> If I'm not wrong, this is the same thing you asked 2 week ago.
>
> If so, why not continue the conversation on the same thread, and why
> not reference the old thread ?
>
> I went to
: Partition column should be part of PK
On 2021-Jul-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> If I'm not wrong, this is the same thing you asked 2 week ago.
>
> If so, why not continue the conversation on the same thread, and why
> not reference the old thread ?
>
> I went to the effort to fi
On 2021-Jul-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> If I'm not wrong, this is the same thing you asked 2 week ago.
>
> If so, why not continue the conversation on the same thread, and why not
> reference the old thread ?
>
> I went to the effort to find the old conversation.
> https://www.postgresql.org/mess
If I'm not wrong, this is the same thing you asked 2 week ago.
If so, why not continue the conversation on the same thread, and why not
reference the old thread ?
I went to the effort to find the old conversation.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210625042228.gj29...@telsasoft.com
If decl
Declarative partitioning was new in v10
In v11, it was allowed to create an index on a partitioned table, including
unique indexes.
However it's not a "global" index - instead, it's an "inherited" index.
For a unique index, uniqueness is enforced within each individual index.
And so global uniquen
12 matches
Mail list logo
