| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: | 2017-12-01 14:39:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobkdA0ig=b-OdM5oqDJUZJ5t6Mi5hA9OkEBukQ4g5Ez8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:39 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I feel like we could do better here with little extra effort. The
> DETACH index feature does not really seem required for this patch.
Because of the dump/restore considerations mentioned in
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobUhGHg9v8SAswkHbBfyWg5A0QB+jGt0UOvq5YcBDUGig@mail.gmail.com
I believe we need a way to create the index on the parent without
immediately triggering index builds on the children, plus a way to
create an index on a child after-the-fact and attach it to the parent.
Detach isn't strictly required, but why support attach and not detach?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-12-01 14:55:03 | Re: Allowing SSL connection of v11 client to v10 server with SCRAM channel binding |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-01 14:34:45 | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |