Search Results

The check constraints of your partitions are strange. They don't exclude the possibility of an order from DEC2015 being inserted into the JAN2016 table. This might not be an issue about inserting, b …

Let's quickly check the COPY documentation: COPY { table_name [ ( column_name [, ...] ) ] | ( query ) } TO { 'filename' ...} ... Your friend will be the query part. It means that you can …

Or, more simply (if you want a day-by-day partitioning), I'd write just RANGE COLUMNS (receiptDate) ... LESS THAN ('2012-10-20') See a very simple working example at SQLFiddle. …

The usual way of partitioning is that the parent is empty, and every row is redirected to one of the children. …

Use the first query from the answer you linked and add a simple WHERE clause to get the partitions of a single table: SELECT nmsp_parent.nspname AS parent_schema, parent.relname AS paren …

Well, with the checks you use for your child tables, it is obvious why such an UPDATE runs into problems. Adding one to id_ changes it from even to odd or back - the new row does not match the check …

Unfortunately, you can't define a foreign key against a partitioned table, only the partitions themselves - but, of course, the referencing table can have only on FK on the column in question... So y …

Apparently, you want to see constraint exclusion at doing its work. As in similar setups the parent table has no constraint (and, just to mention it, usually no rows), it will be always visited by qu …

If they still appear, there are other means than partitioning that one should try first (meaning different indexing strategies, usually). … A meaningful partitioning scheme for such data is very hard to come up with: 350+ partitions are just that much a pain in the ass as 350+ schemas. …

You can try to catch the number of inserted rows using GET DIAGNOSTICS and then raise a notice/warning/whatever you prefer. Here is a small illustration: DO $$ DECLARE cnt integer; BEGIN …