| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |
| Date: | 2018-05-09 15:33:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob+oJ=nwE0M0AgMf8C3kDnO+WOby4FZ6mHor0Ln9zy2ug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> 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.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-09 15:39:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-09 15:33:25 | Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions |