Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: More on my partitioning problem
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:38:39 -0500
Message-Id: <F3E3A375-CF42-4EFD-8C89-151953481360@gmail.com>
References: <afa308100d47d0f9003225a8d39eae82786a7f1d.camel@cybertec.at>
Cc: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <afa308100d47d0f9003225a8d39eae82786a7f1d.camel@cybertec.at>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

Thank, Laurenz ( again ) don=E2=80=99t know why I didn=E2=80=99t think of th=
at. =F0=9F=98=8E

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:=

>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Mon, 2020-11-02 at 07:40 -0500, John Scalia wrote:
>> I created a UNIQUE INDEX on the new base table using the original primary=
 key
>> and the partitioning key. So far, so good. But doing an ALTER TABLE ADD P=
RIMARY KEY USING INDEX,
>> is not supported. So. being that  I already have a unique index here, doe=
s it
>> really matter if I do not declare a primary key here? Otherwise, how woul=
d I go
>> about creating a primary key on this partitioned table?
>=20
> Don't create a unique index and then use it to define a primary key constr=
aint,
> create the primary key directly:
>=20
> ALTER TABLE part ADD PRIMARY KEY (id, part_key);
>=20
> Yours,
> Laurenz
> --=20
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>=20