Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:38:41 +0300
From: Ilya Anfimov <ilan@tzirechnoy.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Patch: Global Unique Index
Message-ID: <Y4X9UWO920xMyv5Q@azor.tzirechnoy.ru>
Mail-Followup-To: Ilya Anfimov <ilan@tzirechnoy.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <184879c5306.12490ea581628934.7312528450011769010@highgo.ca>
 <3866851668762233@ja6lqgzbqb6tniny.sas.yp-c.yandex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3866851668762233@ja6lqgzbqb6tniny.sas.yp-c.yandex.net>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y4X9UWO920xMyv5Q%40azor.tzirechnoy.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:03:53PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
> Do we need new syntax actually? I think that a global unique index can be created automatically instead of raising an error "unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns"

 I may suggest even more of the new syntax.

 If  someone has to implement sequential index checking on unique
constraints, then it would be useful to be able to do that  inde-
pendent of partitioning also.

E.g.  for  some  kinds  of manual partitions or for strangely de-
signed datasets.  Or for some of the table partitions instead for
all of them.

For that reason, perhaps some other type of unique index --  that
is  not  an index per se, but a check against a set of indexes --
could be added.  Or, perhaps, not an index, but an  EXCLUDE  con-
straint of that kind.