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

From David Rowley
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f-MFDJnLX=25GWoTaw8y7K7C0hdzR1Vwa2OMcVMj6ggBQ@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 11 January 2018 at 04:37, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> In prior incarnations of the patch, I had an if-test to prevent
> attaching invalid indexes, but I decided to remove it at some point --
> mainly thinking of attaching a partition for which a CREATE INDEX
> CONCURRENTLY was running which already had the index as invalid and was
> later expected to become valid.  I suppose that doesn't really work
> anyway because of locking considerations (you can't attach a partition
> in which CIC is concurrently running, can you).  I'll think some more
> about this case and post an updated version later.

I guess CIC will need to check if the index has a parent index when
setting indisvalid = true, and do likewise to the parent index if all
other siblings are valid.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rushabh Lathia
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Next
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: numeric regression test passes, but why?