| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alex V(dot)" <in_flight(at)pclovers(dot)ru>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, tgl <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |
| Date: | 2019-06-07 19:03:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzno=Wt9-3aH4_A4HazAB48G+8nZ8MNH-HEL8h3wctOcQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:10 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think vacuuming for global indexes is somewhat challenging as well :-)
> Maybe not as much as for indirect indexes, that's true.
>
> In order for it to be sustainable, I think you'll want to reuse
> partition identifiers when the partitions are dropped/detached, which
> means that you need a way to ensure that index entries to those
> partitions are removed from all indexes.
I'm not so sure about that. I see your point, but I think that you can
also make the opposite argument. That is, you can make a good case for
asynchronously cleaning up the dead entries that point to a dropped
partition (probably within VACUUM). Perhaps we should offer *both* as
options.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-07 19:18:32 | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-07 16:09:59 | Re: Table partition with primary key in 11.3 |