Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h9s4h-0005jY-EH for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:01:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h9s4g-0003sR-0K for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:01:38 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h9s4f-0003ZS-Il for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:01:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h9s4d-0001KA-04 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:01:36 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2TE1VYw021390; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:01:31 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: stepya@ukr.net, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15724: Can't create foreign table as partition In-reply-to: <20190329135519.GA21373@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20190329135519.GA21373@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:55:19 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21388.1553868091.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:01:31 -0400 Message-ID: <21389.1553868091@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alvaro Herrera writes: > On 2019-Mar-29, PG Bug reporting form wrote: >> SQL Error [42809]: ERROR: cannot create index on foreign table "msg_json" > Ah, this is because we try to propagate the index to the partition, > which appears to be less than desirable. Maybe this patch fixes it? I > have not tested it, only verified that it compiles. Really, what *ought* to happen in such a case is that the FDW gets told about the command and has the opportunity to try to do something corresponding to making an index. But that smells like a new feature rather than a bug fix. I'm not sure that just forcing the case to be a no-op is wise. What if the index is supposed to be UNIQUE? regards, tom lane