On 9 May 2018 at 15:26, Arseny Sher <a.s...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> 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 would be virtual or foreign indexes??) > > Similar ideas were discussed at [1]. There was no wide consensus of even > what problems such feature would solve. Since currently indexes on > foreign tables are just forbidden, it seems to me that the best what > partitioning code can do today is just not creating them. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4F62FD69.2060007%40lab.ntt.co.jp#4f62fd69.2060...@lab.ntt.co.jp
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. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
