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: 2017-12-18T02:04:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> If ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH is already taking AEL on the parent, then I
>> think it might as well try to validate while it's at it.  But if not
>> then we might want to go with #2.
>
> I'm now not that clear on what the behaviour is if the ONLY keyword is
> not specified on the CREATE INDEX for the partitioned index. Does that
> go and create each leaf partition index regardless of if there is a
> suitable candidate to ATTACH?

No, the other way around.  ONLY is being proposed as a way to create
an initially-not-valid parent to which we can then ATTACH
subsequently-created child indexes.  But because we will have REPLACE
rather than DETACH, once you get the index valid it never goes back to
not-valid.

-- 
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