Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-12-12T03:04:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
David Rowley wrote:

> ATTACH/REPLACE sounds fine. My objection was more about the
> DETACH/ATTACH method to replace an index.

So what happens if you do ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH and you already have
another index in that partition that is attached to the same parent in
the index?  With my code, what happens is you have two indexes attached
to the same parent, and you can't drop any.  If we don't have DETACH,
how can you get out of that situation?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Local partitioned indexes

  2. Fix StoreCatalogInheritance1 to use 32bit inhseqno

  3. Get rid of copy_partition_key

  4. Simplify index_[constraint_]create API