Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZn3HLoh6vtMm5VrjM5eD2c1MZoYsvqWFRLXDTVNgTzGw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If ALTER INDEX .. ATTACH is already taking AEL on the parent, then I >> think it might as well try to validate while it's at it. But if not >> then we might want to go with #2. > > I'm now not that clear on what the behaviour is if the ONLY keyword is > not specified on the CREATE INDEX for the partitioned index. Does that > go and create each leaf partition index regardless of if there is a > suitable candidate to ATTACH? No, the other way around. ONLY is being proposed as a way to create an initially-not-valid parent to which we can then ATTACH subsequently-created child indexes. But because we will have REPLACE rather than DETACH, once you get the index valid it never goes back to not-valid. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: