Re: Patch: Global Unique Index

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

To: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, Cary Huang <cary.huang@highgo.ca>, Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net>

Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2022-11-30T12:28:50Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Apply a better fix to mdunlinkfork().
- 85d8b30724c0 16.0 cited

On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 10:09 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 11/29/22 17:29, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-11-29 at 13:58 +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > > I disagree.  A user does not need to know that a table is partitionned,
> > > and if the user wants a unique constraint on the table then making them
> > > type an extra word to get it is just annoying.
> > 
> > Hmm.  But if I created a primary key without thinking too hard about it,
> > only to discover later that dropping old partitions has become a problem,
> > I would not be too happy either.
> 
> I have not looked at this patch, but my understanding of its design is 
> the "global" part of the index just makes sure to check a unique index 
> on each partition.  I don't see from that how dropping old partitions 
> would be a problem.

Right, I should have looked closer.  But, according to the parallel discussion,
ATTACH PARTITION might be a problem.  A global index is likely to be a footgun
one way or the other, so I think it should at least have a safety on
(CREATE PARTITIONED GLOBAL INDEX or something).

Yours,
Laurenz Albe