Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-12-05T22:35:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:53 PM, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'm not hugely concerned about that. It's not a new problem and it's > not a problem that I recall seeing anyone complain about, at least not > to the extent that we've ever bothered to fix it. > > The existing problem is with FOREIGN KEY constraints just choosing the > first matching index in transformFkeyCheckAttrs() > > We can see the issue today with: > > create table t1 (id int not null); > create unique index t1_idx_b on t1 (id); > create table t2 (id int references t1 (id)); > create unique index t1_idx_a on t1 (id); > > <pg_dump> > <pg_restore> > > # drop index t1_idx_a; > ERROR: cannot drop index t1_idx_a because other objects depend on it > DETAIL: constraint t2_id_fkey on table t2 depends on index t1_idx_a > HINT: Use DROP ... CASCADE to drop the dependent objects too. Ugh, that sucks. I don't think it's a good argument for making the problem worse, though. What are we giving up by explicitly attaching the correct index? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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