"=?utf-8?B?Q2F0YWxpbih1eCkgTS4gQm9pZQ==?=" writes:
> I hope I make myself clear now: I want a possibility to add a CHECK that will
> be used for partitioning without having to read all data for validation.
Basically, this is unlikely to be accepted, because it does not conform
with the project's
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Catalin(ux) M. BOIE
wrote:
> The old_stats is so big that I cannot afford to add a check constraint.
> But, I know that all values of the itime field are before 2012_04, so, would
> be great if I could run something like:
If you Really Really need it and if you'r
Hello.
Now I understand why I was not clear.
From what I understood, NOT VALID feature will not allow for the CHECK to be
used in queries. So, for partitioning, my goal, is critical that the CHECK
condition to be used.
I hope I make myself clear now: I want a possibility to add a CHECK that wi
Hello.
Thanks for the answer.
I really want to avoid reading the whole table. It is too expensive, and with
the proposed feature will be not needed. I think is much faster to forcefully
add the check if you know the range of data.
What do you think?
--
Catalin(ux) M. BOIE
http://kernel.embedr
On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 22:06 +0300, Catalin(ux) M. Boie wrote:
> Hello.
> Thanks for the answer.
>
> I really want to avoid reading the whole table. It is too expensive,
> and with the proposed feature will be not needed. I think is much
> faster to forcefully add the check if you know the range o
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 12:52 +0300, Catalin(ux) M. BOIE wrote:
> The old_stats is so big that I cannot afford to add a check constraint.
> But, I know that all values of the itime field are before 2012_04, so,
> would be great if I could run something like:
>
> ALTER TABLE old_stats ADD CONSTRAINT
