On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:45:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> Should relhassubclass be set/reset for partitioned indexes? > > Seems like a reasonable idea to me, at least the "set" end of it. > We don't ever clear relhassubclass for tables, so maybe that's > not necessary for indexes either.
No objections to the proposal. Allowing find_inheritance_children to find index trees for partitioned indexes could be actually useful for extensions like pg_partman. >> Michael suggested on the linked thread to get rid of relhassubclass >> altogether, like we did for relhaspkey recently, but I'm not sure whether >> it would be a good idea right yet. > > We got rid of relhaspkey mostly because it was of no use to the backend. > That's far from true for relhassubclass. Partitioned tables are expected to have partitions, so the optimizations related to relhassubclass don't seem much worth worrying. However relations not having inherited tables may take a performance hit. If this flag removal would be done, we'd need to be careful about the performance impact and the cost of extra lookups at pg_inherit. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
