From: | Anna Akenteva <a(dot)akenteva(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Change a constraint's index - ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT ... USING INDEX ... |
Date: | 2020-08-10 06:29:31 |
Message-ID: | 63dcd8ca59ac92019c562e13b434c462@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-07-07 01:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2020-Jul-05, Anna Akenteva wrote:
>>> -- Swapping primary key's index for an equivalent index,
>>> -- but with INCLUDE-d attributes.
>>> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX new_idx ON target_tbl (id) INCLUDE (info);
>>> ALTER TABLE target_tbl ALTER CONSTRAINT target_tbl_pkey USING INDEX
>>> new_idx;
>>> ALTER TABLE referencing_tbl ALTER CONSTRAINT
>>> referencing_tbl_id_ref_fkey
>>> USING INDEX new_idx;
>
>> How is this state represented by pg_dump?
>
> Even if it's possible to represent, I think we should flat out reject
> this "feature". Primary keys that aren't primary keys don't seem like
> a good idea. For one thing, it won't be possible to describe the
> constraint accurately in the information_schema.
Do you think it could still be a good idea if we only swap the
relfilenodes of indexes, as it was suggested in [1]? The original use
case was getting rid of index bloat, which is now solved by REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY, but this feature still has its own use case of adding
INCLUDE-d columns to constraint indexes.
--
Anna Akenteva
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-08-10 06:57:33 | Re: Unnecessary delay in streaming replication due to replay lag |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-08-10 05:10:24 | Re: Add information to rm_redo_error_callback() |