Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> But when I say
>> CREATE TABLE ( a int PRIMARY KEY, ... ) PARTITION blah ...
>> then I expect that the primary key will be enforced across all
>> partitions. We currently sidestep that issue by not offering seemingly
>> transparent partitioning. But if you are planning to offer that, the
>> unique index issue needs to be solved, and I see nothing in your plan
>> about that.
>>
>
> Agreed, it needs to Just Work. I think it'd still be useful though
> if we only support auto-partitioning on the primary key, and that
> restriction avoids the indexing problem.
>
>
Maybe. The most obvious use for automatic partitioning that I can think
of would be based in the value of a timestamptz field rather than any
PK. Of course I tend to work more in the OLTP field than in DW type
apps, where other considerations might apply.
cheers
andrew
