| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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 |
| Date: | 2017-12-18 02:03:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZPBOFAbSD3dS8Mwme0BjuR6eQ9Mc04U6Kbmb7fztP00w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> If ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH is already taking AEL on the parent, then I
>> think it might as well try to validate while it's at it. But if not
>> then we might want to go with #2.
>
> The problem I have with it is that restoring a dump containing indexes
> on partitions becomes a O(N^2) deal as it has to do the full check once
> for every index we attach.
Sure. If the constant factor is high enough to matter, then VALIDATE
makes sense.
IMHO, anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-18 02:04:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-18 01:57:59 | Re: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak |