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.
--
Vik Fearing
