Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions
| От | Bolaji Wahab |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+f_mLOkQkc=1crYS0mEK0nyw=8=ogGEXAKiLqu+UqFdbDDJ9Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Clarification of behaviour when dropping partitions (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Yes, right. I wonder if the team sees an opportunity for some optimization here, supporting such a scenario efficiently. I can't think of any downsides to it but I may be missing something.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:38 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 23:00 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:20 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-12-04 at 14:22 +0100, Bolaji Wahab wrote:
> > > I have these two partitioned tables, with referential integrity. The tables
> > > are structured in such a way that we have 1 to 1 mapping between their
> > > partitions. This is achieved with a foreign key.
> >
> > I recommend that you don't create the foreign key constraint between the
> > partitioned tables, but between the individual partitions.
> >
> > That will make detaching and dropping partitions easier, and you will have
> > the same integrity guarantees.
>
> Yes, this is what I have done.
> But the whole point of declaring the foreign key constraint on the partitioned
> table is to have it automatically created on subsequent/future partitions.
Sure, but then you have to accept the disadvantage that it becomes more
difficult to detach partitions. I think it is less pain to create the
constraint on the partition level.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: