Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date: 2017-11-03 19:09:04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might work to build the new key in a context that's initially a
>> child of CurrentMemoryContext, then reparent it to be a child of
>> CacheMemoryContext when done.

> That's another way (than the PG_TRY block), but I think it's more
> complicated with no gain.

I disagree: PG_TRY blocks are pretty expensive.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-11-03 19:30:25 Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Previous Message Daniele Varrazzo 2017-11-03 18:50:45 Re: [HACKERS] SSL and Encryption