On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 18:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-06, Alex V. wrote: > > > I think that your position about primary keys in partitional tables is > > not right. > > > > If we see regular table, one-field primary key is cross-table unique. > > In partitional tables for users view we MUST also seen unique > > one-field primary key because this is user requirement and another > > keys can destroy logic between regular and partitional tables and > > functionality of partitioning becomes useless. > > For administrators of table we not-MAY, but MUST see one-field unique > > primary key in cross-table realisation. > > All another realizations are plugging holes in a hurry and non-logical > > at global review of engine. > > If you are saying that you think that Postgres should support primary > keys that don't necessarily overlap partition keys, then I agree with > you. Please send a patch to implement that capability. > The point is that unique indexes that overlap partition keys are rather cheap because they can be made from a set of local indexes. A unique index that doesn't overlap partition keys would be * unfeasibly huge * likely to hit the 32TB limit on relations * unable to cope with dropping partitions It sounds like you want it, cos its just a line of DDL, but in practice your colleagues wouldn't want those things. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
