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+TgmoabguaTds64hHhfac+hZqzox5Kv4YREuJYk+infXWE0Nw@mail.gmail.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  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 9:38 PM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 December 2017 at 15:04, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Rowley
>> <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I'm now not that clear on what the behaviour is if the ONLY keyword is
>>> not specified on the CREATE INDEX for the partitioned index. Does that
>>> go and create each leaf partition index regardless of if there is a
>>> suitable candidate to ATTACH?
>>
>> No, the other way around.  ONLY is being proposed as a way to create
>> an initially-not-valid parent to which we can then ATTACH
>> subsequently-created child indexes.  But because we will have REPLACE
>> rather than DETACH, once you get the index valid it never goes back to
>> not-valid.
>
> I understand what the ONLY is proposed to do. My question was in
> regards to the behaviour without ONLY.

Oh, sorry -- I was confused.  I'm not sure whether that should try to
attach to something if it exists, or just create unconditionally...
what do you think?

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table