On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 10:09 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 11/29/22 17:29, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 13:58 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > > I disagree. A user does not need to know that a table is partitionned,
> > > and if the user wants a unique constraint on the table then making them
> > > type an extra word to get it is just annoying.
> >
> > Hmm. But if I created a primary key without thinking too hard about it,
> > only to discover later that dropping old partitions has become a problem,
> > I would not be too happy either.
>
> I have not looked at this patch, but my understanding of its design is
> the "global" part of the index just makes sure to check a unique index
> on each partition. I don't see from that how dropping old partitions
> would be a problem.
Right, I should have looked closer. But, according to the parallel discussion,
ATTACH PARTITION might be a problem. A global index is likely to be a footgun
one way or the other, so I think it should at least have a safety on
(CREATE PARTITIONED GLOBAL INDEX or something).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
