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_WMiAnHKDNDQ_gMBGSqJkVW5GNRUX4SG18m-r9RF0-gQ@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 15 November 2017 at 06:49, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Here's the remaining bits, rebased.

Hi,

I've not had time for a thorough look at  this, but on a quick scan I noticed that CompareIndexInfo() missed checking if the Index AM matches the AM of the partitioned index.

Testing with:

create table p (a int not null) partition by range (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values from (1) to (10);
create table p2 partition of p for values from (10) to (20);
create index on p1 using btree (a);
create index on p2 using hash (a);
create index on p (a);

I see it ends up making use of the hash index on p2 to support the index that's stored as a btree on the partitioned table. I think these should match so that the operations we can perform on the index are all aligned.

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Devrim Gündüz
Date:
Subject: Re: pspg - psql pager
Next
From: Arthur Silva
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression