From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, keith(dot)fiske(at)crunchydata(dot)com, ejberdecia(at)yahoo(dot)com, david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15954: Unable to alter partitioned table to set logged |
Date: | 2024-04-22 19:36:20 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZHFOQDcx1tnyjV=kT9ss5dPDk8AKbCPv3ughhUJh5yHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:29 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> At Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:44:34 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> wrote in <20190821134434(dot)GA9383(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:24:38AM -0400, Keith Fiske wrote:
> > > As the others have stated, I think we just need to get some sort of
> > > consistent method of handling this. Currently running an ALTER TABLE
> on the
> > > parent to change the UNLOGGED state simply does nothing which is not
> > > intuitive whatsoever. Even if it's just throwing an error saying you
> cannot
> > > change this property, that would be better until a more thorough
> solution
> > > can be implemented in the future.
> >
> > One problem with an error is that it may break existing application
> > code :(
>
> It is quite strange that we can CREATE both LOGGED and UNLOGGED
> partitioned table but cannot ALTER the property. I believe no one
> does ALTER TABLE SET (UN)LOGGED expecting it is silently ignored.
>
>
I have no issue leaving the unlogged aspect of an unlogged partitioned
table being basically something the system ignores. But it is a bug to
fail to update the metadata related to this if it is explicitly altered.
Can we at least get that part fixed?
There is little upside to preventing the existence of an unlogged
partitioned table at this point. I have just submitted a doc patch to deal
with that side of the equation.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-04-22 22:56:23 | Re: BUG #18442: Unnecessary Sort operator in indexScan Plan |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-04-22 06:16:08 | Re: BUG #18442: Unnecessary Sort operator in indexScan Plan |