Hi,
On 5/23/07, NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com> wrote: Hi,
The index creation happens after the new table (which is LIKE the parent) has been created, by appending the cxt.alist information to "extras_after". The entry point for the index creation is thus via ProcessUtility which expects an IndexStmt structure. That is why the current patch does all the Oid to name mapping exercise to populate the relevant fields in IndexStmt some of which are char pointers. The internal DefineIndex function also expects most of the fields to be in IndexStmt like format.
If we want to follow the above suggestion, as I understand it, we might have to devise a new structure to contain Oids and make ProcessUtility accept a new nodeTag. We will also not be able to use existing Index definition functions and this will lead to more coding IMHO. Do we want to go down this path? Or is there something else that has been suggested above and that I am missing completely?
OTOH, we can populate a new structure with the relevant Oids, IndexInfo information from parent relation indexes and call index_create directly from within ProcessUtility. Guess, it should be cleaner than the current approach.
Sorry for the barrage of emails. But as I looked closely at the current patch there are only 2 fields (accessMethod and tableSpace) in IndexStmt structure that we populate by doing the conversion from OIDs to name. For the other fields, the current transformations will remain.
If so, I think we can introduce 2 Oid fields in the IndexStmt structure and store the Oids there. In DefineIndex we can use these Oids if they are not invalid.
IMHO, all this is less work and the bulk of the changes remain localized in mostly one or two functions as in the current patch.
Comments?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
