On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 00:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 07:05:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We probably also need multi-table indexes.
> >
> > As Josh says, that seems antithetical to the main point of partitioning,
> > which is to be able to rapidly remove (and add) partitions of a table.
> > If you have to do index cleaning before you can drop a partition, what's
> > the point of partitioning?
>
> Hmm. You are right, but without that we won't be able to enforce
> uniqueness on the partitioned table (we could only enforce it on each
> partition, which would mean we can't partition on anything else than
> primary keys if the tables have one). IMHO this is something to
> consider.
Could uniqueness across partitions be checked for using a mechanism
similar to what a deferred unique constraint would use (trigger / index
combination)?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
