Re: relhassubclass and partitioned indexes

Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Should relhassubclass be set/reset for partitioned indexes?

Seems like a reasonable idea to me, at least the "set" end of it.
We don't ever clear relhassubclass for tables, so maybe that's
not necessary for indexes either.

> Michael suggested on the linked thread to get rid of relhassubclass
> altogether, like we did for relhaspkey recently, but I'm not sure whether
> it would be a good idea right yet.

We got rid of relhaspkey mostly because it was of no use to the backend.
That's far from true for relhassubclass.

			regards, tom lane