Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent?

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 10:18:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:32:36PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 17:03, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Here's a patch for that. Parking here until January's commitfest.
>>
>> And another, now rebased atop of de38ce1b8 (which I probably should
>> have waited for).

Thanks for the patch, David. I can see that this patch makes the code
more consistent for partitioned tables and partitioned indexes when it
comes to tablespace handling, which is a very good thing.

-ATExecPartedIdxSetTableSpace(Relation rel, Oid newTableSpace)
+ATExecSetTableSpaceNoStorage(Relation rel, Oid newTableSpace)
NoStorage looks strange as routine name for this case. Would something
like ATExecPartedRelSetTableSpace be more adapted perhaps?

+ else if (stmt->partbound)
+ {
+ RangeVar *parent;
+ Relation parentrel;
+
+ /*
+ * For partitions, when no other tablespace is specified, we default
+ * the tablespace to the parent partitioned table's.
+ */
Okay, so the direct parent is what counts, and not the top-most parent.
Could you add a test with multiple level of partitioned tables, like:
- parent is in tablespace 1.
- child is created in tablespace 2.
- grandchild is created, which should inherit tablespace 2 from the
child, but not tablespace 1 from the parent. In the existing example,
as one partition is used to test the top-most parent and another for the
new default, it looks cleaner to create a third partition which would be
itself a partitioned table.
--
Michael