Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes
От | Teodor Sigaev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5ee72852-3c4e-ee35-e2ed-c1d053d45c08@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Patch makes buildfarm almost red, patch is temporary reverted. Actually, discovered bug is not related to patch except new test faces with it, problem is: CompareIndexInfo() checks rd_opfamily for equality for all attributes, not only for key attribute. Obviously, CompareIndexInfo() needs more work: for (i = 0; i < info1->ii_NumIndexAttrs; i++) { if (maplen < info2->ii_KeyAttrNumbers[i]) Seems, we can go out from ii_KeyAttrNumbers array. 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 >>> ATTACH >>> 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@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: