Horton

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

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2018-01-16T23:08:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 17 January 2018 at 03:58, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> 9. Error details claim that p2_a_idx is not a partition of p.
>> Shouldn't it say table "p2" is not a partition of "p"?
>
> You missed the "on" in the DETAIL:
>   DETAIL:  Index "p2_a_idx" is not on a partition of table "p".
> You could argue that this is obscurely worded, but if you look at the
> command:
>    ALTER INDEX p_a_idx ATTACH PARTITION p2_a_idx;
> nowhere is table p2 mentioned, so I'm not sure it's a great idea to
> mention the table in the error message.

I think I did miss the "on".

>> 10. You've added code to get_relation_info() to handle partitioned
>> indexes, but that code is skipped [...]
>> The new code should either be removed, or you should load the index
>> list for a partitioned table.
>
> That's a leftover from previous versions too.  YAGNI principle says I
> should remove it rather than activate it, I think, since the optimizer
> is not going to use the data for anything.

Agreed.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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