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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Date: 2017-11-14 14:40:08
Message-ID: 20171114144008.mlmuulkzlxacnelc@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 12:55, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > Somehow I managed to include an unrelated patch as attachment. Here's
> > another attempt (on which I also lightly touched ddl.sgml with relevant
> > changes).
> Looks good. Some minor comments below.
> 0001- Simplify
> Seems useful as separate step; agree with everything, no further comments

Thanks, pushed.

> Why uint16? Why not just uint?

*Shrug*. 16 bits seem plenty enough. I changed it to bits16, which we
use in other places for bitmasks.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-11-14 15:23:28 Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2017-11-14 14:27:11 Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures