| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghengan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Global Index |
| Date: | 2019-10-30 14:13:26 |
| Message-ID: | 19464.1572444806@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A global index by very definition is a single index on the parent table
> that maps to many
> underlying table partitions.
I believe that the current design of partitioning is explicitly intended
to avoid the need for such a construct. It'd be absolutely disastrous
to have such a thing from many standpoints, including the breadth of
locking needed to work with the global index, the difficulty of vacuuming,
and the impossibility of cheaply attaching or detaching partitions.
In other words, this is a "feature" we do not want.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Asif Rehman | 2019-10-30 14:16:11 | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-30 14:09:47 | Re: Add SQL function to show total block numbers in the relation |