From: Arseny Sher <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Arseny Sher <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers\@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 17:26:34 +0300
Message-ID: <87r2mkdhwl.fsf@ars-thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANP8+j+L5W22kuiMMwtjhanqMMos_eRfuE=K6V4Krw_hgpgEcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87sh71cakz.fsf@ars-thinkpad>
<CANP8+j+L5W22kuiMMwtjhanqMMos_eRfuE=K6V4Krw_hgpgEcA@mail.gmail.com>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> How much sense is it to have a partitioned table with a mix of local
> and foreign tables?
Well, as much sense as fdw-based sharding has, for instance. It is
arguable, but it exists.
> Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on foreign tables?
> (Maybe they would be virtual or foreign indexes??)
Similar ideas were discussed at [1]. There was no wide consensus of even
what problems such feature would solve. Since currently indexes on
foreign tables are just forbidden, it seems to me that the best what
partitioning code can do today is just not creating them.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4F62FD69.2060007%40lab.ntt.co.jp#4F62FD69.2060007@lab.ntt...
--
Arseny Sher
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: a.sher@postgrespro.ru, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions
In-Reply-To: <87r2mkdhwl.fsf@ars-thinkpad>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox