| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheriting table AMs for partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2019-03-06 11:31:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-8sm+DduF0jQhaXtB+knNLyhaBSZ-wsQEARr-SoAz+7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 07:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:59 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Based on this mail I'm currently planning to simply forbid specifying
> > USING for partitioned tables. Then we can argue about this later.
>
> +1. I actually think that might be the right thing in the long-term,
> but it undeniably avoids committing to any particular decision in the
> short term, which seems good.
I've not really been following the storage am patch, but given that a
partition's TABLESPACE is inherited from its partitioned table, I'd
find it pretty surprising that USING wouldn't do the same. They're
both storage options, so I think having them behave differently is
going to cause some confusion.
I think the patch I just submitted to [1] should make it pretty easy
to make this work the same as TABLESPACE does.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2019-03-06 11:41:01 | Re: ECPG regression with DECLARE STATEMENT support |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-03-06 11:26:21 | Re: pg_dump is broken for partition tablespaces |