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: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-01-05T22:16:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Tangentially: I didn't like very much that I added a new index to
> pg_index to support this feature.  I thought maybe it'd be better to
> change the index on indrelid to be on (indrelid,indparentidx) instead,
> but that doesn't seem great either because it bloats that index which is
> used to support common relcache operations ...
>
> (The more I think of this, the more I believe that pg_inherits is a
> better answer.  Opinions?)

I actually haven't looked at the code, but the idea that pg_inherits
is on the way out is news to me.  If that method will work, I don't
quite see why we should invent something new.

-- 
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