From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |
Date: | 2018-05-14 17:29:10 |
Message-ID: | 20180514172910.wjuvrtcdhcc5y3u7@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-May-10, Amit Langote wrote:
> How about we error out even *before* calling DefineIndex for the 1st time?
> I see that ProcessUtilitySlow() gets a list of all partitions when
> locking them for index creation before calling DefineIndex. Maybe, just
> go through the list and error out if one of them is a partition that we
> don't support creating an index on?
The overwhelming consensus seems to be for this option, so I pushed your
patch after some small tweaks -- mostly to simplify unnecessarily
baroque code. (I must have been thinking that recursion would happen
right in ProcessUtilitySlow. That doesn't match my memories, but I
can't explain this code otherwise.) I added a very small test too.
I think it'd be better to take this out of ProcessUtility also and into
DefineInde, for cleanliness sake; maybe add a 'recursing' flag to
DefineIndex. Not for pg11, though.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-05-14 17:46:07 | Re: SPI/backend equivalent of extended-query Describe(statement)? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-05-14 17:15:48 | Re: SPI/backend equivalent of extended-query Describe(statement)? |