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: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-11-17T11:58:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 15 November 2017 at 06:49, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
wrote:

> Here's the remaining bits, rebased.


Hi,

I've not had time for a thorough look at  this, but on a quick scan I
noticed that CompareIndexInfo() missed checking if the Index AM matches the
AM of the partitioned index.

Testing with:

create table p (a int not null) partition by range (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values from (1) to (10);
create table p2 partition of p for values from (10) to (20);
create index on p1 using btree (a);
create index on p2 using hash (a);
create index on p (a);

I see it ends up making use of the hash index on p2 to support the index
that's stored as a btree on the partitioned table. I think these should
match so that the operations we can perform on the index are all aligned.

-- 
 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