Hi Murtuza,
Lets imagine you have
CREATE TABLE cities (
city_id bigserial not null,
name text not null,
population int
) PARTITION BY LIST (initcap(name));
CREATE TABLE cities_west
PARTITION OF cities (
CONSTRAINT city_id_nonzero CHECK (city_id != 0)
) FOR VALUES IN ('Los Angeles', 'San Francisco') PARTITION BY RANGE
(population);
CREATE TABLE cities_west_10000_to_100000
PARTITION OF cities_west FOR VALUES FROM (10000) TO (100000);
You can only create an index in *cities_west_10000_to_100000* because
postgresql assumes that *cities_west* is also a partitioned table. So the
implementation looks correct, despite the fact that there are no tests
around it.
Thanks
Joao
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:26 AM Akshay Joshi <akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com>
wrote:
> Hi Murtuza
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Murtuza Zabuawala <
> murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Akshay,
>>
>> I have concerns regarding the fix, As you negate the condition, Before
>> the fix it was not displaying Index node for Tables but after the fix it
>> will not display it for Partition tables.
>> But when I read the Postgres docs it say,
>> *Partitions may themselves be defined as partitioned tables, using what
>> is called sub-partitioning. Partitions may have their own indexes,
>> constraints and default values, distinct from those of other partitions.
>> Indexes must be created separately for each partition. See CREATE TABLE
>> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-createtable.html> for more
>> details on creating partitioned tables and partitions.*
>> Ref: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html
>> (Sec: 5.10.2)
>>
>
> Yes that is correct, but it's about Partitions(child tables), not the
> *Partitioned* table. We are showing indexes on Partitions. Please refer
> "Index_on_Partitioned_table.png"
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Murtuza Zabuawala
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Akshay Joshi <
>> akshay.jo...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Hackers,
>>>
>>> Please find the attached patch to fix RM #3180 Index node is missing
>>> from the tree view of the table node. This is a regression of one of the
>>> older commit.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Akshay Joshi*
>>>
>>> *Sr. Software Architect *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Phone: +91 20-3058-9517 <+91%2020%203058%209517>Mobile: +91
>>> 976-788-8246 <+91%2097678%2088246>*
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Akshay Joshi*
>
> *Sr. Software Architect *
>
>
>
> *Phone: +91 20-3058-9517 <+91%2020%203058%209517>Mobile: +91 976-788-8246
> <+91%2097678%2088246>*
>
