| 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>, 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: | 2017-12-18 03:10:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobJJwKeBON4H2kb3pnh0-mtJ_MuzOvYCeOgh0w2k_7TCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:05 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think you feel quite strongly about not having the code select a
> random matching index, so if we want to stick to that rule, then we'll
> need to create a set of new leaf indexes rather than select a random
> one.
I feel quite strongly about it *in the context of pg_dump*. Outside
of that scenario, I'm happy to go with whatever behavior you and
others think will satisfy the POLA.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-18 03:14:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-12-18 03:05:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |