Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

Hi.

On 2018/05/02 11:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 12:30:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> However, backing up a minute, I don't think "relation \"%s\" is not a
>> btree index" is such a terrible message. These modules are intended
>> to be intended by people who Know What They Are Doing. If we do want
>> to change the message, I submit that the only thing that makes it a
>> little unclear is that a user might fail to realize that a partitioned
>> index is not an index. But that could be fixed just by adding a
>> separate message for that one case (index \"%s\" is partitioned) and
>> sticking with the existing message for other cases.

+1

> I have been chewing on that, and I come to agree that there is perhaps
> little point to complicate the code as long as a failure is properly
> reported to the user. I propose hence the attached, which adds test
> cases in the contrib module set for partitioned indexes (amcheck also
> lacked tests for partition tables and indexes), and fixes a set of code
> paths to be consistent with the presence of this new relkind.

--- a/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out
+++ b/contrib/amcheck/expected/check_btree.out

+-- verify partitioned tables are rejected (error)
+SELECT bt_index_check('bttest_partitioned');
+ERROR: "bttest_partitioned" is not an index

Perhaps, I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it might
be better to have the word "partitioned" in the message.

ERROR: "bttest_partitioned" is partitioned index

..which Robert seems to think might not be too bad.

That will need adding some code to these modules like we did in
c08d82f38ebf763 [1].

Thanks,
Amit

[1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=c08d82f38eb