Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: 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: 2018-04-11 13:45:12
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you, pushed

Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi.
> On 2018/04/11 0:36, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>>     Does the attached fix look correct?  Haven't checked the fix with
>>>     PARTITION though.
>>> Attached patch seems to fix the problem.  However, I would rather get
>>> rid of modifying stmt->indexParams.  That seems to be more logical
>>> for me.  Also, it would be good to check some covering indexes on
>>> partitioned tables.  See the attached patch.
>> Seems right way, do not modify incoming object and do not copy rather
>> large and deep nested structure as suggested by Amit.
> Yeah, Alexander's suggested way of using a separate variable for
> indexParams is better.
>> But it will  be better to have a ATTACH PARTITION test too.
> I have added tests. Actually, instead of modifying existing tests, I
> think it might be better to have a separate section at the end of
> indexing.sql to test covering indexes feature for partitioned tables.
> Attached find updated patch.
> Thanks,
> Amit

Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-04-11 13:57:22 Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2018-04-11 13:43:37 Re: Boolean partitions syntax