Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZf=EbRMdSXaWZ1pGzVkA+e5xfFCntKh_OZUr9=WkxT7g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I'm OK with collation of included columns to be the same as collation
> of underlying table columns.  But I still think we should throw an error
> when user is trying to specify his own collation of included columns.

I agree.  The collation of a table column is just setting a default
for how it gets interpreted in queries, but the collation of an index
column affects the ordering of the index.  For INCLUDE columns, the
latter isn't relevant, so the value has no meaning.  Letting people
set a meaningless value sometimes gets us into trouble (see also the
nearby thread on TABLESPACE settings on partitioned tables).

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance
Next
From: Keith Fiske
Date:
Subject: Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance