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

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

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

To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>

Date: 2018-01-24T17:41:34Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

0001-Ignore-partitioned-indexes-in-get_relation_info.patch (text/plain)

I think this is the right fix for this problem.  I wonder about
exploring other callers of RelationGetIndexList to see who else could be
confused ...

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

Commits

Local partitioned indexes
- 8b08f7d4820f 11.0 landed
Fix StoreCatalogInheritance1 to use 32bit inhseqno
- 1ef61ddce908 11.0 landed
- 9a215fb4b5ec 9.3.21 landed
- 8a71ee628854 9.6.7 landed
- 61f08c016322 10.2 landed
- 1284d18b5de9 9.4.16 landed
- 0d993709a773 9.5.11 landed
Get rid of copy_partition_key
- 8a0596cb656e 11.0 landed
Simplify index_[constraint_]create API
- a61f5ab98638 11.0 landed