Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:42 AM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6 December 2017 at 11:35, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What are we giving up by explicitly attaching
>> the correct index?
>
> The part I don't like about the ATTACH and DETACH of partitioned index
> is that it seems to be trying to just follow the syntax we use to
> remove a partition from a partitioned table, however, there's a huge
> difference between the two, as DETACHing a partition from a
> partitioned table leaves the partitioned table in a valid state, it
> simply just no longer contains the detached partition. With the
> partitioned index, we leave the index in an invalid state after a
> DETACH. It can only be made valid again once another leaf index has
> been ATTACHED again and that we've verified that all other indexes on
> every leaf partition is also there and are valid. If we're going to
> use these indexes to answer queries, then it seems like we should try
> to keep them valid so that queries can actually use them for
> something.
>

+1 for all that. Exactly my thoughts.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company