Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRcrqi+JZpNKa9F6BRP92yS4boovEXONQ45Z1+473QGg-A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2016/11/24 15:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On 2016/11/24 14:35, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>>> IIUC, it should allow "create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary >>>> key) ...", (a primary key) is nothing but "column_name >>>> column_constraint", but here's what happens >>>> create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary key) for values from (0) to (100); >>>> ERROR: syntax error at or near "primary" >>>> LINE 1: create table t1_p1 partition of t1 (a primary key) for value... >>> >>> You have to specify column constraints using the keywords WITH OPTIONS, >>> like below: >>> >>> create table p1 partition of p ( >>> a with options primary key >>> ) for values in (1); >> >> Oh, sorry for not noticing it. You are right. Why do we need "with >> option" there? Shouldn't user be able to specify just "a primary key"; >> it's not really an "option", it's a constraint. > > I just adopted the existing syntax for specifying column/table constraints > of a table created with CREATE TABLE OF type_name. Hmm, I don't fine it quite intuitive. But others might find it so. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: