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

On 2 December 2017 at 11:10, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> What you're saying is that I've written code for A+B, and you're
> "interested in C (which is incompatible with B), so can we have A+C and
> drop B".  But in reality, there exists (unwritten) D that solves the
> incompatiblity between B and C.  I'm just saying it's essentially the
> same to postpone C+D than to postpone B+D, and I already have B written;
> plus that way we don't have to come up with some novel way to handle
> pg_dump support.  So can we get A+B committed and discuss C+D later?
>
> A = partitioned indexes
> B = pg_dump support based on ATTACH
> C = your proposed planner stuff
> D = correct indisvalid setting for partitioned indexes (set to false
>     when a partition does not contain the index)
>
> The patch in this thread is A+B.

Okay,  I wasn't insisting, just asking if you thought this was missing
from the patch.

However, I do still feel that if we're adding an index to an object
then it should be available in RelOptInfo->indexlist, but this patch
is still good progress even if we don't add it there.

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