Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eEj2R-0001CE-TH for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eEj2R-0000NM-3W for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:35 +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 1eEj2Q-0000N7-UK for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:34 +0000 Received: from smtprelay0161.b.hostedemail.com ([64.98.42.161] helo=smtprelay.b.hostedemail.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eEj2M-0001Lz-L4 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:34 +0000 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.248.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.248]) by smtprelay03.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753431A73C1; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 616C76686572726540616C76682E6E6F2D69702E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:599:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1312:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1519:1534:1541:1593:1594:1595:1596:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2560:2563:2682:2685:2689:2693:2828:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:4362:4605:5007:6119:6261:7809:7875:7903:9025:9121:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12296:12663:13069:13071:13311:13357:13439:13618:13894:13895:14093:14097:14180:14181:14721:14764:21060:21080:21324:21627:30012:30030:30054:30070,0,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: suit26_8f62cb0755761 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2645 Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (93-45-229-98.ip104.fastwebnet.it [93.45.229.98]) (Authenticated sender: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) by omf01.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CE73452C; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:46:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:46:18 +0100 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Jesper Pedersen Cc: Simon Riggs , Robert Haas , Pg Hackers , Maksim Milyutin Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table Message-ID: <20171114214618.5trtvdrm3fjo7ji3@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3d57d8ad-e76d-f0cf-0c42-d1202c643dba@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper, Thanks for reviewing. Jesper Pedersen wrote: > I have been looking at the "CREATE INDEX ... ONLY" syntax, and I think it > could cause some confusion due to the "Note" described in create_index.sgml. > > An alternative, maybe crazy, could be to treat a partitioned index as one; > e.g. all operations are on the definition. Well, honestly that's the way I wanted partitioning to be defined, right from the start -- my first proposal was that partitions were not to be standalone objects. But I was outvoted once I stepped out of the implementation, and partitioning is now the way we have it -- each partition its own separate object. Until we change that view (if we ever do), I think the only sensible decision is that the whole feature works that way. > Some comments. [...] Thanks, will fix. Except for this one: > A small thing, for > > -- test.sql -- > CREATE TABLE test (a integer NOT NULL) PARTITION BY HASH(a); > CREATE TABLE test_p00 PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES WITH (MODULUS 2, > REMAINDER 0); > CREATE TABLE test_p01 PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES WITH (MODULUS 2, > REMAINDER 1); > CREATE INDEX idx_test_a ON test (a); > -- test.sql -- > > I would expect that the index names were 'test_p00_idx_test_a' and > 'test_p01_idx_test_a'. Hmm, the code in my patch just uses the standard naming routine for indexes. I'm disinclined to change it in the initial commit, but perhaps we can change that later. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services