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

On 8 October 2017 at 02:34, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> However, when
> you dump-and-restore (including but not limited to the pg_upgrade
> case) you've got to preserve those names. If you just generate a new
> name that may or may not be the same as the old one, then it may
> collide with a user-specified name that only occurs later in the dump.
> Also, you'll have trouble if the user has applied a COMMENT or a
> SECURITY LABEL to the index because that command works by name, or if
> the user has a reference to the index name inside a function or
> whatever.

I might be arriving late for the party here, but I see mention on here
of when we ATTACH a partition that we'd check to see if any of that
table's indexes match the index definition required for the
partitioned table's "partitioned index", and just use those indexes
and incorporate them into the partitioned index by setting the new OID
column in pg_index (or whatever way was decided to record the
dependency)... So, if that works for ATTACH, then can't pg_dump just
create each of the partition's indexes first, then create the
partitioned table's partition index, and that command would just go
through checking each partition similar to how ATTACH would work. That
way we get to keep all the names as pg_dump would just dump the
indexes belonging to each partition like it were any other index.
Those indexes would only become a bit more special once the
partitioned index is created on the parent.

I've not read the patch yet, but reading the thread it does not seem
to have gone in this direction. Maybe I'm overlooking something?

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services