Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > That's a mild personal preference only though. Anyway, based on your > proposed wording, I wrote this:
> <listitem> > <para> > Unique constraints on partitioned tables (as well as primary keys) > must constrain all the partition key columns. This limitation exists > because <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> can only enforce > uniqueness in each partition individually. > </para> > </listitem> > I'm not really sure about the "must constrain" verbiage. Is that really > comprehensible? I think "must include" might be better. > In CREATE TABLE, we already have this: > <para> > When establishing a unique constraint for a multi-level partition > hierarchy, all the columns in the partition key of the target > partitioned table, as well as those of all its descendant partitioned > tables, must be included in the constraint definition. > </para> > which may not be the pinnacle of clarity, but took some time to craft > and I think is correct. Also it doesn't mention primary keys > explicitly; maybe we should patch it by adding "(as well as a primary > key)" right after "a unique constraint". Thoughts? I'd leave that alone. I don't think the parenthetical comment about primary keys in your new text is adding much either. regards, tom lane