On 2018/05/15 2:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-May-10, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> How about we error out even *before* calling DefineIndex for the 1st time?
>> I see that ProcessUtilitySlow() gets a list of all partitions when
>> locking them for index creation before calling DefineIndex. May
On 2018-May-10, Amit Langote wrote:
> How about we error out even *before* calling DefineIndex for the 1st time?
> I see that ProcessUtilitySlow() gets a list of all partitions when
> locking them for index creation before calling DefineIndex. Maybe, just
> go through the list and error out if o
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think its reasonable to expect you interpret my words sensibly,
> rather than in some more dramatic form where I seem to break rules
> with every phrase.
Sure, I agree. I try to interpret the words of everyone here sensibly
and without unne
On 9 May 2018 at 17:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 9 May 2018 at 16:15, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 9 May 2018 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> But it seems I've misinterpreted what he was saying. He doesn't seem to
> be saying anything about how or whether we enforce the unique constraint
> on foreign tables. Only that if someone creates a constraint index on the
> partitioned tabl
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>
> How about we error out even *before* calling DefineIndex for the 1st time?
> I see that ProcessUtilitySlow() gets a list of all partitions when
> locking them for index creation before calling DefineIndex. Maybe, just
> go through the list
On 2018/05/10 10:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Something
> that I find confusing on HEAD though is that DefineIndex calls itself
> around line 1006 and cascades through each children but there is no
> context about the error.
>
> For example if I have this partition layer:
> CREATE TABLE measuremen
On 2018/05/10 10:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:15:05AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> While I agree with this, let me point out that we do allow inherited check
>> constraints on foreign tables that are not actually enforced locally.
>>
>> create table p (a int) partition b
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:15:05AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> While I agree with this, let me point out that we do allow inherited check
> constraints on foreign tables that are not actually enforced locally.
>
> create table p (a int) partition by range (a);
> create table p1 partition of p for
On 2018/05/09 23:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> For right now, I think the options are (1) throw an ERROR if we
> encounter a foreign table or (2) silently skip the foreign table. I
> think (2) is defensible for non-UNIQUE indexes, because the index is
> just a performance optimization.
Along with othe
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:10:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed about unique indexes. I suggest that we throw an error for both
> cases, because (1) having unique and non-unique indexes behave differently
> for this purpose seems pretty weird; (2) throwing an error now preserves
> our options t
Simon Riggs writes:
> Indexes on foreign tables cause an ERROR, so yes, we already just
> don't create them.
>
> You're suggesting silently skipping the ERROR. I can't see a reason for that.
Truly, I was inaccurate. I mean that index propagation is a nice feature,
and making it available for mi
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If we can assume an index exists on a foreign table, why can we not
> just assume a unique index exists?? Why the difference?
We can't assume either of those things, and I didn't say that we should.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.en
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 May 2018 at 16:15, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 9 May 2018 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Shouldn'
On 9 May 2018 at 16:15, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 9 May 2018 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on foreign tables?
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 May 2018 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on foreign tables?
(Maybe they would be virtual or foreign inde
On 9 May 2018 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on foreign tables?
>>> (Maybe they would be virtual or foreign indexes??)
>
>> It might be useful to invent the concept of a f
On 9 May 2018 at 15:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> For right now, I think the options are (1) throw an ERROR if we
> encounter a foreign table or (2) silently skip the foreign table. I
> think (2) is defensible for non-UNIQUE indexes, because the index is
> just a performance optimization. However, fo
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on foreign tables?
>> (Maybe they would be virtual or foreign indexes??)
> It might be useful to invent the concept of a foreign index, but not
> for v11 a month after fe
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> How much sense is it to have a partitioned table with a mix of local
> and foreign tables?
Fair question, but we put some effort into making it work, so I think
it should keep working.
> Shouldn't the fix be to allow creation of indexes on for
On 9 May 2018 at 15:26, Arseny Sher wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs 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
Simon Riggs 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 woul
On 9 May 2018 at 12:50, Arseny Sher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 8b08f7d4 added propagation of indexes on partitioned tables to
> partitions, which is very cool. However, index creation also recurses
> down to foreign tables. I doubt this is intentional, as such indexes are
> forbidden as not making much sens
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Arseny Sher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 8b08f7d4 added propagation of indexes on partitioned tables to
> partitions, which is very cool. However, index creation also recurses
> down to foreign tables. I doubt this is intentional, as such indexes are
> forbidden as not making m
Hi,
8b08f7d4 added propagation of indexes on partitioned tables to
partitions, which is very cool. However, index creation also recurses
down to foreign tables. I doubt this is intentional, as such indexes are
forbidden as not making much sense; attempt to create index on
partitioned table with fo
25 matches
Mail list logo
