| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2018-04-12 10:14:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvrj-yRZ6AZCGhtqocMRajx5M-5PoXCt+ALnDDHacKD2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> wrote:
> That's the idea that I tried to express. The point is that we need to
>>> tell the user that there is no need to worry about it, rather than
>>> that they're wrong to ask about it. Though we should probably actually
>>> just throw an error.
>>>
>>
>> Or maybe it should be the collation of the underlying table columns.
>> Otherwise the collation returned by an index-only scan would be
>> different from a table scan, no?
>>
> +1, dangerous
I'm OK with collation of included columns to be the same as collation
of underlying table columns. But I still think we should throw an error
when user is trying to specify his own collation of included columns.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-04-12 10:19:16 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-04-12 10:06:44 | Re: crash with sql language partition support function |