| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |
| Date: | 2018-05-10 14:28:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaH5K5W1V+FbtwJNY-YjBeZchgbKK8VpFtbGr649T-RRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> But it seems I've misinterpreted what he was saying. He doesn't seem to
> be saying anything about how or whether we enforce the unique constraint
> on foreign tables. Only that if someone creates a constraint index on the
> partitioned table, all partitions *including* foreign partitions, must get
> a copy.
Honestly, I hadn't quite gotten that far in my thinking. That's a
really useful distinction, and I completely agree with it.
> So for now, we give users an error if they try to create an index on a
> partitioned table with a mix of local and foreign partitions. Once we
> figure out how to allow creating indexes (constraint-enforcing or not) on
> foreign tables, we can then think of relaxing that restriction.
Yeah, that sounds exactly right.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-10 14:49:31 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-10 14:22:43 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |