| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alex V(dot)" <in_flight(at)pclovers(dot)ru>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, tgl <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |
| Date: | 2019-06-07 16:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20190607160959.GA21111@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2019-Jun-07, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:00 PM David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > You may already be aware, but another use case for such variable-width
> > identifiers was with indirect indexes as discussed in [1]
>
> Right. I went with global indexes because indirect indexes are
> probably a lot more risky as a project. I'd be particularly concerned
> about the complexity of VACUUM there, whereas that doesn't seem all
> that bad in the case of global indexes.
I think vacuuming for global indexes is somewhat challenging as well :-)
Maybe not as much as for indirect indexes, that's true.
In order for it to be sustainable, I think you'll want to reuse
partition identifiers when the partitions are dropped/detached, which
means that you need a way to ensure that index entries to those
partitions are removed from all indexes.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-06-07 19:03:37 | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-06-07 15:58:25 | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |