Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date: 2018-01-17 13:49:26
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaU8EDwu0cxcy1Sk8=T6qNhkZKf8DYn+n1cXHmQLedwCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:08 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 17 January 2018 at 03:58, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>>> 9. Error details claim that p2_a_idx is not a partition of p.
>>> Shouldn't it say table "p2" is not a partition of "p"?
>>
>> You missed the "on" in the DETAIL:
>> DETAIL: Index "p2_a_idx" is not on a partition of table "p".
>> You could argue that this is obscurely worded, but if you look at the
>> command:
>> ALTER INDEX p_a_idx ATTACH PARTITION p2_a_idx;
>> nowhere is table p2 mentioned, so I'm not sure it's a great idea to
>> mention the table in the error message.
>
> I think I did miss the "on".

I think you will not be the only person to make that mistake. I think
it would be better phrased as

DETAIL: "p2_a_idx" is not an index of any partition of table "p"

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-17 13:51:57 Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-01-17 13:47:24 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)