Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions
Date: 2018-05-09 15:33:46
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob+oJ=nwE0M0AgMf8C3kDnO+WOby4FZ6mHor0Ln9zy2ug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If we can assume an index exists on a foreign table, why can we not
> just assume a unique index exists?? Why the difference?

We can't assume either of those things, and I didn't say that we should.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-05-09 15:39:24 Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-05-09 15:33:25 Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions