| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Batch update of indexes |
| Date: | 2016-01-27 20:15:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-bvTs2=Mv5OqHgAWADmn4E_2Sz7wRyvewuFfqiCgoYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Please notice that such alter table statement, changing condition for
> partial index, is not supported now.
> But I do not see any principle problems with supporting such construction.
> We should just include in the index all records which match new condition
> and do not match old condition:
>
> ts < '21/01/2016' and not (ts < '20/01/2016')
You'd also need to remove any rows from the index that match the old
condition but not the new one. In your example, that's impossible,
but in general, it's definitely possible.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-27 20:42:16 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Previous Message | james | 2016-01-27 20:04:56 | Re: WAL Re-Writes |