Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fPG-0005ny-3J for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fPF-00048b-HT for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fNh-0001Ld-4x for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:15:13 +0000 Received: from smtprelay0240.b.hostedemail.com ([64.98.42.240] helo=smtprelay.b.hostedemail.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e6fNc-0007cs-SZ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:15:12 +0000 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.248.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.248]) by smtprelay02.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2A7D398B; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:15:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 616C76686572726540616C76682E6E6F2D69702E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:599:800:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1312:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1437:1515:1516:1518:1519:1534:1541:1593:1594:1595:1596:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2525:2538:2553:2560:2563:2682:2685:2828:2859:2895:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:4605:5007:6261:7809:7875:7903:9025:9121:10004:10394:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12663:13069:13311:13357:13439:13894:13895:14181:14721:14764:21080:21627:30012:30054:30070:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:3,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: vein81_2c72f85ba4819 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2880 Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (net-37-182-231-222.cust.vodafonedsl.it [37.182.231.222]) (Authenticated sender: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) by omf12.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9E000EBF; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:15:03 +0200 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Robert Haas Cc: Pg Hackers , Maksim Milyutin Subject: Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table Message-ID: <20171023161503.ohkybquxrlech7d7@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I started with Maksim's submitted code, and developed according to the > > ideas discussed in this thread. Attached is a very WIP patch series for > > this feature. > > > > Many things remain to be done before this is committable: pg_dump > > support needs to be written. ALTER INDEX ATTACH/DETACH not yet > > implemented. No REINDEX support yet. Docs not updated (but see the > > regression test as a guide for how this is supposed to work; see patch > > 0005). CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY not done yet. > > > > I'm now working on the ability to build unique indexes (and unique > > constraints) on top of this. > > Cool. Are you planning to do that by (a) only allowing the special > case where the partition key columns/expressions are included in the > indexed columns/expressions, (b) trying to make every insert to any > index check all of the indexes for uniqueness conflicts, or (c) > implementing global indexes? Because (b) sounds complex - think about > attach operations, for example - and (c) sounds super-hard. I'd > suggest doing (a) first, just on the basis of complexity. Yes, I think (a) is a valuable thing to have -- not planning on doing (c) at all because I fear it'll be a huge time sink. I'm not sure about (b), but it's not currently on my plan. > I hope that you don't get so involved in making this unique index > stuff work that we don't get the cascading index feature, at least, > committed to v11. That's already a considerable step forward in terms > of ease of use, and I'd really like to have it. Absolutely -- I do plan to get this one finished regardless of unique indexes. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers