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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZPBOFAbSD3dS8Mwme0BjuR6eQ9Mc04U6Kbmb7fztP00w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> If ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH is already taking AEL on the parent, then I
>> think it might as well try to validate while it's at it.  But if not
>> then we might want to go with #2.
>
> The problem I have with it is that restoring a dump containing indexes
> on partitions becomes a O(N^2) deal as it has to do the full check once
> for every index we attach.

Sure.  If the constant factor is high enough to matter, then VALIDATE
makes sense.

IMHO, anyway.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table