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.GJ29179@telsasoft.com
If declaratively partitioned tables and partitioned indexes don't do what you
wanted, then you should consider not using them for this.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:10:07AM +0000, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> we have some partitioned tables with inherence and planning to migrate them to the declaration.
> Table DDL:
> CREATE TABLE c_account_p
> (
> billing_account_guid character varying(40) NOT NULL,
> ingestion_process_id bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT '-1'::integer,
> load_dttm timestamp(6) without time zone NOT NULL,
> ban integer NOT NULL,
> CONSTRAINT billing_account_pkey PRIMARY KEY (billing_account_guid, ban)
> ) PARTITION by RANGE(load_dttm);
> When I try the create table, it's throwing below error:
> ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
> DETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "l_billing_account_p" lacks column "load_dttm" which is part of the
partitionkey.
> SQL state: 0A000
> Is it mandatory/necessary that the partition column should be a primary key? cause if I include load_dttm as PK then
it'sworking fine.db<>fiddle
> If the partition column should be supposed to be a PK, it's challenging to create a partition by range with the date
column,cause the load_dttm column chances to have duplicate if data loaded COPY or INSERT.INSERT INTO c_account_p
SELECT* from c_account_p_bkp ON CONFLICT (billing_account_guid,ban,load_dttm) DO UPDATE SET 'some stuff..'
> If I receive billing_account_guid, ban combination with different load_dttm then it will end up with duplicate keys.
> Could some please help me to understand this scenario?
> Thanks.
