Horton

Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Ilya Gladyshev <ilya.v.gladyshev@gmail.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-03-25T17:11:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's why I wanted list_length() not list_length() - 1.  We are
>> doing *something* at the top partitioned table, it just doesn't
>> involve a table scan, so I don't find this totally unreasonable.
>> If you agree we are doing work at intermediate partitioned tables,
>> how are we not doing work at the top one?

> What you're proposing would redefine the meaning of
> PARTITIONS_DONE/TOTAL, even in the absence of intermediate partitioned
> tables.  Which might be okay, but the scope of this thread/patch was to
> fix the behavior involving intermediate partitioned tables.

I'm a little skeptical of that argument, because this patch is already
redefining the meaning of PARTITIONS_TOTAL.  The fact that the existing
documentation is vague enough to be read either way doesn't make it not
a change.

Still, in the interests of getting something done I'll drop the issue.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix CREATE INDEX progress reporting for multi-level partitioning.