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

David Rowley wrote:

> I wonder if it should be this patches job to alter the code in
> get_relation_info() which causes the indexes not to be loaded for
> partitioned tables:
>
> /*
> * Make list of indexes. Ignore indexes on system catalogs if told to.
> * Don't bother with indexes for an inheritance parent, either.
> */
> if (inhparent ||
> (IgnoreSystemIndexes && IsSystemRelation(relation)))
> hasindex = false;
> else
> hasindex = relation->rd_rel->relhasindex;
>
> A partitioned table will always go into the hasindex = false code path.
>
> I'm kind of thinking this patch should change that, even if the patch is
> not making use of the indexes, you could argue that something
> using set_rel_pathlist_hook might want to do something there, although,
> there's likely a bunch of counter arguments too.
>
> What do you think?

Great question. So you're thinking that the planner might have an
interest in knowing what indexes are defined at the parent table level
for planning purposes; but for that to actually have any effect we would
need to change the planner and executor also. And one more point, also
related to something you said before: we currently (I mean after my
patch) don't mark partitioned-table-level indexes as valid or not valid
depending on whether all its children exist, so trying to use that in
the planner without having a flag could cause invalid plans to be
generated (i.e. ones that would cause nonexistent indexes to be
referenced).

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services