Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-11-14T20:51:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't see any comments from you or Tom about patch 0001, which was
> simple refactoring and not much to complain about.

We both commented that getting rid of copy_partition_data could
introduce memory leaks.

> Perhaps there is some confusion about the numbering?

I don't think so.

> I see that Alvaro had taken your comments on memory contexts into
> account in his later patch.

Which later patch?  It seems like any changes meant to mitigate the
problems with removing copy_partition_data ought to be folded into the
patch that removes copy_partition_data, rather than being in some
other patch later in the series.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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