Horton

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

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-01-04T21:45:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 1/4/18 12:00, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The catalog representations of partitioned tables and partitioned
>> indexes are completely different, which may or may not be desirable.
> 
> How so?

If someone wants to write a query, show me all the partitions of this
table versus show me all the partitions of this index, intuitively,
those could be the same, different only by some relkind references.
Currently, you'd have to write two completely different queries.  It's
not a big deal, but it's a consideration.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://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