Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaJJUZF41r-5NyEb2mMNXaT6Rf4FK=BWdRun0S758dXDw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 2:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This made me wonder if this could be a usable solution at all, but > after thinking for awhile, I don't see how the claim about foreign key > constraints is anything but FUD. pg_dump/pg_restore have sufficient > dependency logic to prevent that from happening. I think we can just > drop the "or perhaps ..." clause here, and tolerate the possible > inefficiency as better than failing. Right, but isn't that dependency logic based around the fact that the inserts are targeting the original partition? Like, suppose partition A has a foreign key that is not present on partition B. A row that is originally in partition B gets rerouted into partition A. It must now satisfy the foreign key constraint when, previously, that was unnecessary. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: