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: 2017-12-18T02:59:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 9:38 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 December 2017 at 15:04, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Rowley
>> <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I understand what the ONLY is proposed to do. My question was in
> regards to the behaviour without ONLY.

Oh, sorry -- I was confused.  I'm not sure whether that should try to
attach to something if it exists, or just create unconditionally...
what do you think?

-- 
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