|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > Tangentially: I didn't like very much that I added a new index to
> > pg_index to support this feature. I thought maybe it'd be better to
> > change the index on indrelid to be on (indrelid,indparentidx) instead,
> > but that doesn't seem great either because it bloats that index which is
> > used to support common relcache operations ...
> > (The more I think of this, the more I believe that pg_inherits is a
> > better answer. Opinions?)
> I actually haven't looked at the code, but the idea that pg_inherits
> is on the way out is news to me. If that method will work, I don't
> quite see why we should invent something new.
I removed the pg_index.indparentidx column that previous versions add,
and replaced it with pg_inherits rows. This makes the code a little bit
bulkier in a couple of places, but nothing terrible. As a benefit,
there's no extra index in pg_index now.
I fixed some outdated comments, too.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-01-08 21:14:49||Re: update portal-related memory context names and API|
|Previous Message||Jesper Pedersen||2018-01-08 20:47:15||Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table|