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: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-12-12T13:47:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> David Rowley wrote:
>
>> ATTACH/REPLACE sounds fine. My objection was more about the
>> DETACH/ATTACH method to replace an index.
>
> So what happens if you do ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH and you already have
> another index in that partition that is attached to the same parent in
> the index?

I think that should be an ERROR.  You can use REPLACE if you want to
switch which index is attached, but you shouldn't be able to attach
two indexes from the same partition at the same time.

-- 
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