| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 15:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJGY=rN7Ep=uc_GjX_FMz0M8ywJj2dAoeUKcTRDFk2_Jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 May 2018 at 15:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For right now, I think the options are (1) throw an ERROR if we
> encounter a foreign table or (2) silently skip the foreign table. I
> think (2) is defensible for non-UNIQUE indexes, because the index is
> just a performance optimization. However, for UNIQUE indexes, at
> least, it seems like we'd better do (1), because a major point of such
> an index is to enforce a constraint; we can't allege that we have such
> a constraint if foreign tables are just silently skipped.
If we can assume an index exists on a foreign table, why can we not
just assume a unique index exists?? Why the difference?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-05-09 15:14:30 | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-09 15:10:43 | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |