Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
| От | David Rowley |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKJS1f-HhHtfZToz=t5nzxHZi8TE3-AVy1r58EDSGtfNRWvcAw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 November 2017 at 06:49, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
-- Here's the remaining bits, rebased.
I wonder if it should be this patches job to alter the code in get_relation_info() which causes the indexes not to be loaded for partitioned tables:
/*
* Make list of indexes. Ignore indexes on system catalogs if told to.
* Don't bother with indexes for an inheritance parent, either.
*/
if (inhparent ||
(IgnoreSystemIndexes && IsSystemRelation(relation)))
hasindex = false;
else
hasindex = relation->rd_rel->relhasindex;
A partitioned table will always go into the hasindex = false code path.
I'm kind of thinking this patch should change that, even if the patch is not making use of the indexes, you could argue that something using set_rel_pathlist_hook might want to do something there, although, there's likely a bunch of counter arguments too.
What do you think?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: