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>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <m.milyutin@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2017-11-14T12:16:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 15 November 2017 at 01:09, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> if a
> partition exists which *doesn't* have the index, restoring things this
> way would create the index in that partition too, which is unwanted
> because the end state is different to what was in the dumped database.

hmm, but surely the all those indexes must already exist if the
partitioned index exists. Won't we be disallowing DROP INDEX of the
leaf partition indexes if that index is marked as being part of the
partitioned index?

If so, then surely this could only happen if someone manually edited
the pg_dump file to remove the CREATE INDEX statement for the leaf
partition, and if they do that, then maybe they won't be so surprised
that CREATE INDEX has to create some indexes.

-- 
 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