On 27-01-2015 AM 05:46, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/25/15 7:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 21-01-2015 PM 07:26, Amit Langote wrote: >>> Ok, I will limit myself to focusing on following things at the moment: >>> >>> * Provide syntax in CREATE TABLE to declare partition key >> >> While working on this, I stumbled upon the question of how we deal with >> any index definitions following from constraints defined in a CREATE >> statement. I think we do not want to have a physical index created for a >> table that is partitioned (in other words, has no heap of itself). As >> the current mechanisms dictate, constraints like PRIMARY KEY, UNIQUE, >> EXCLUSION CONSTRAINT are enforced as indexes. It seems there are really >> two decisions to make here: >> >> 1) how do we deal with any index definitions (either explicit or >> implicit following from constraints defined on it) - do we allow them by >> marking them specially, say, in pg_index, as being mere >> placeholders/templates or invent some other mechanism? >> >> 2) As a short-term solution, do we simply reject creating any indexes >> (/any constraints that require them) on a table whose definition also >> includes PARTITION ON clause? Instead define them on its partitions (or >> any relations in hierarchy that are not further partitioned). >> >> Or maybe I'm missing something... > > Wasn't the idea that the parent table in a partitioned table wouldn't > actually have a heap of it's own? If there's no heap there can't be an > index. >
Yes, that's right. Perhaps, we should look at heap-less partitioned relation thingy not so soon as you say below. > That said, I think this is premature optimization that could be done later. It seems so. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
