Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

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: 2017-12-18T03:10:29Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:05 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think you feel quite strongly about not having the code select a
> random matching index, so if we want to stick to that rule, then we'll
> need to create a set of new leaf indexes rather than select a random
> one.

I feel quite strongly about it *in the context of pg_dump*.  Outside
of that scenario, I'm happy to go with whatever behavior you and
others think will satisfy the POLA.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

Local partitioned indexes
- 8b08f7d4820f 11.0 landed
Fix StoreCatalogInheritance1 to use 32bit inhseqno
- 1ef61ddce908 11.0 landed
- 9a215fb4b5ec 9.3.21 landed
- 8a71ee628854 9.6.7 landed
- 61f08c016322 10.2 landed
- 1284d18b5de9 9.4.16 landed
- 0d993709a773 9.5.11 landed
Get rid of copy_partition_key
- 8a0596cb656e 11.0 landed
Simplify index_[constraint_]create API
- a61f5ab98638 11.0 landed