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: 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: 2017-12-07T21:51:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:43 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> And yeah, this does nothing for making sure we choose the correct
> index if more than one matching index exists on the leaf partition,
> but perhaps we can dump a series of
>
> ALTER INDEX p_a_idx REPLACE INDEX FOR p1 WITH p1_a_idx;
> ALTER INDEX p_a_idx REPLACE INDEX FOR p2 WITH p2_a_idx;
>
> ... which would be no-ops most of the time, but at least would ensure
> we use the correct index. (Likely we could fix the FOREIGN KEY
> constraint choosing the first matching index with some variation of
> this syntax)

Sure, that would fix the problem I'm concerned about, but creating the
parent index first, as a shell, and then creating each child and
attaching it to the parent *also* fixes the problem I'm concerned
about, and without dragging any bystander objects into the fray.

-- 
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