Re: Declarative Range Partitioning Postgres 11 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ron
Subject Re: Declarative Range Partitioning Postgres 11
Date
Msg-id eb0fb651-f95c-0bbe-e376-b216ce145b25@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Declarative Range Partitioning Postgres 11  (Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 10/8/19 12:33 PM, Michael Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM Shatamjeev Dewan <sdewan@nbsps.com> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

In this case , I always need to include partition key(date)  in primary key ( if I have a primary key defined on non partition key column e.g id (in my case), to make it a composite primary key (id, date). This would allow duplicate id with different date,which is not desirable .


If you are generating the ID with a sequence, there isn't any real world likelihood of conflict, but I do understand your concern in terms of enforcing data integrity. Other than creating a custom stored procedure that functions as a primary key constraint, I don't know of any way around that.

Let's take a step back... why do you think you need to partition at all? And why partition by the date/timestamp/timestamptz field?

Because archiving old is (well, should be) easier that way.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Joseph Krogh
Date:
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault with PG-12
Next
From: Igal Sapir
Date:
Subject: Case Insensitive Comparison with Postgres 12