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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date
Msg-id 803ac362-d8ef-ba67-daf5-b3263718070b@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/4/18 23:08, David Rowley wrote:
> On 5 January 2018 at 11:01, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> (The more I think of this, the more I believe that pg_inherits is a
>> better answer.  Opinions?)
> 
> I admit to not having had a chance to look at any code with this yet,
> but I'm just thinking about a case like the following.
> 
> CREATE TABLE part (a INT, b INT) PARTITION BY RANGE (a);
> CREATE TABLE part_a1 PARTITION OF part FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (10)
> PARTITION BY RANGE (b);
> CREATE TABLE part_a1_b1 PARTITION OF part_a1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (10);
> 
> CREATE INDEX ON part_a1 (a); -- sub-partition index (creates index on
> part_a1_b1)
> 
> CREATE INDEX ON part (a); -- What do we do here?
> 
> Should we:
> 
> 1. Create another identical index on part_a1_b1; or
> 2. Allow the existing index on part_a1_b1 to have multiple parents; or
> 3. ERROR... (probably not)

4. It should adopt part_a1 and its subindexes into its hierarchy.  That
shouldn't be a problem under the current theory, should it?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Removing useless DISTINCT clauses
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Invalid pg_upgrade error message during live check