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: 2017-11-30T19:17:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Great question.  So you're thinking that the planner might have an
> interest in knowing what indexes are defined at the parent table level
> for planning purposes; but for that to actually have any effect we would
> need to change the planner and executor also.  And one more point, also
> related to something you said before: we currently (I mean after my
> patch) don't mark partitioned-table-level indexes as valid or not valid
> depending on whether all its children exist, so trying to use that in
> the planner without having a flag could cause invalid plans to be
> generated (i.e. ones that would cause nonexistent indexes to be
> referenced).

Did you do it this way due to locking concerns?

-- 
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