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 20180118155625.npteaei5gdcv6ngl@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
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/11/18 13:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The delta patch turned out to have at least one stupid bug, and a few
> > non-stupid bugs.  Here's an updated version that should behave
> > correctly, and addresses all reported problems.
> 
> It seems that CompareIndexInfo() still doesn't compare indexes' operator
> classes and collations.
> 
> Also, some new test cases for pg_dump would be nice.

Fixed CompareIndexInfo to compare collations and opfamilies; also added
tests about that.

I think I fixed all the items David reported too, including rewording
the error message to Robert's suggestion.  (One thing remaining is the
int16 used in StoreCatalogInheritance1 signature.)

pg_dump tests are still missing here, but I think this version is good
enough step forward.  I'll add a few tests for pg_dump, and see about
getting this pushed early tomorrow.

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Possible gaps/garbage in the output of XLOG reader
Next
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: Unnecessary static variable?