| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2017-12-12 03:04:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20171212030454.peiuavv47hhugjfh@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley wrote:
> ATTACH/REPLACE sounds fine. My objection was more about the
> DETACH/ATTACH method to replace an index.
So what happens if you do ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH and you already have
another index in that partition that is attached to the same parent in
the index? With my code, what happens is you have two indexes attached
to the same parent, and you can't drop any. If we don't have DETACH,
how can you get out of that situation?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-12-12 03:30:08 | Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-12 03:03:23 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |