Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 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.
I second that - partitioning on some kind of timestamp field is a common
usecase here too ...
Stefan
