Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KEqRbkf+UWSzX3P-71Bng0+4D2Dj6k5wuZic4Jfc_TOg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11 May 2017 at 17:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Few comments: >>> 1. >>> Operating directly on partition doesn't allow update to move row. >>> Refer below example: >>> create table t1(c1 int) partition by range(c1); >>> create table t1_part_1 partition of t1 for values from (1) to (100); >>> create table t1_part_2 partition of t1 for values from (100) to (200); >>> insert into t1 values(generate_series(1,11)); >>> insert into t1 values(generate_series(110,120)); >>> >>> postgres=# update t1_part_1 set c1=122 where c1=11; >>> ERROR: new row for relation "t1_part_1" violates partition constraint >>> DETAIL: Failing row contains (122). >> >> Yes, as Robert said, this is expected behaviour. We move the row only >> within the partition subtree that has the update table as its root. In >> this case, it's the leaf partition. >> > > Okay, but what is the technical reason behind it? Is it because the > current design doesn't support it or is it because of something very > fundamental to partitions? > One plausible theory is that as Select's on partitions just returns the rows of that partition, the update should also behave in same way. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: