| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 00:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | 994fa677-2dac-8fe5-3f39-024cd6406522@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi.
On 2018/04/11 0:36, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> Does the attached fix look correct? Haven't checked the fix with
>> ATTACH
>> PARTITION though.
>>
>>
>> Attached patch seems to fix the problem. However, I would rather get
>> rid of modifying stmt->indexParams. That seems to be more logical
>> for me. Also, it would be good to check some covering indexes on
>> partitioned tables. See the attached patch.
>
> Seems right way, do not modify incoming object and do not copy rather
> large and deep nested structure as suggested by Amit.
Yeah, Alexander's suggested way of using a separate variable for
indexParams is better.
> But it will be better to have a ATTACH PARTITION test too.
I have added tests. Actually, instead of modifying existing tests, I
think it might be better to have a separate section at the end of
indexing.sql to test covering indexes feature for partitioned tables.
Attached find updated patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| DefineIndex-fix-covering-index-partitioned-3.patch | text/plain | 5.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-04-11 01:05:17 | Re: [HACKERS] kqueue |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-11 00:48:56 | Re: Gotchas about pg_verify_checksums |