| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Date: | 2017-11-30 19:17:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa9VsZuen6bAEiH8R5FXA3UUK_2TScamDBixfYYriNPoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Great question. So you're thinking that the planner might have an
> interest in knowing what indexes are defined at the parent table level
> for planning purposes; but for that to actually have any effect we would
> need to change the planner and executor also. And one more point, also
> related to something you said before: we currently (I mean after my
> patch) don't mark partitioned-table-level indexes as valid or not valid
> depending on whether all its children exist, so trying to use that in
> the planner without having a flag could cause invalid plans to be
> generated (i.e. ones that would cause nonexistent indexes to be
> referenced).
Did you do it this way due to locking concerns?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-11-30 19:47:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-30 19:14:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |