Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date
Msg-id 20180104220133.6sa4zpf5liurxhte@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/4/18 12:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> The catalog representations of partitioned tables and partitioned
> >> indexes are completely different, which may or may not be desirable.
> > 
> > How so?
> 
> If someone wants to write a query, show me all the partitions of this
> table versus show me all the partitions of this index, intuitively,
> those could be the same, different only by some relkind references.

Well, this "indparentidx" stuff I came up with is a little bit strange.
Perhaps we could use pg_inherits instead, but I think the general view
is that pg_inherits is on its way out.

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?)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: GSoC 2018
Next
From: Remi Colinet
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] Make block and file size for WAL and relations definedat cluster creation