| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| 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 |
| Date: | 2018-01-05 22:16:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobf1bn017TN2R67Y+PcNEzX2OuQ5074HmN1-c=nQqMtXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-05 22:17:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-05 22:12:42 | Re: unique indexes on partitioned tables |