Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Date: 2024-09-18 15:58:34
Message-ID: Zur4qqhABOXtZS8h@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:17:47AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Could we also use ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE to remove the partitioned table
> check in ATExecAddIndexConstraint()?

Eh, never mind. That ends up being gross because you have to redo the
relation type check in a few places.

--
nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
add_constraint_using_index_on_part_table.patch text/plain 2.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2024-09-18 17:21:40 Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-09-18 15:48:49 Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior