Re: BUG #15724: Can't create foreign table as partition
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
stepya@ukr.net, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2019-04-01T06:57:29Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
(2019/04/01 15:23), Amit Langote wrote: > On 2019/04/01 14:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> (2019/03/29 23:10), Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> On 2019-Mar-29, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>>> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>>> On 2019-Mar-29, PG Bug reporting form wrote: >>>>>> SQL Error [42809]: ERROR: cannot create index on foreign table >>>>>> "msg_json" >> >>>> Really, what *ought* to happen in such a case is that the FDW gets >>>> told about the command and has the opportunity to try to do something >>>> corresponding to making an index. >> >> Interesting! > > +1 > > Maybe, CHECK constraints on foreign tables are similar -- it merely > asserts the condition that all of the rows in the remote table *must* > satisfy so that the local server can do something useful with it, such as > trying to exclude the table with constraint exclusion. > > I guess the intended benefit with allowing indexes would be similar -- a > locally-defined index on a foreign table will help an FDW estimate the > cost of a query accessing the table more efficiently than, for example, > having to rely on some other relatively expensive alternative, such as > use_remote_estimate in postgres_fdw's case. Yeah, I think so. Another benefit I can think of would be: that would probably allow us to support ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for foreign tables. I think the intended benefit would be large! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
Commits
-
Fix partitioned index creation with foreign partitions
- 9653ca2197e2 11.5 landed
- 55ed3defc966 12.0 landed
-
Doc: Update documentation on partitioning vs. foreign tables.
- 7338ed28e2ec 11.3 landed
- 3e6b0c472942 12.0 landed