Re: minor tweak to catalogs.sgml pg_class.reltablespace

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minor tweak to catalogs.sgml pg_class.reltablespace
Date: 2024-03-20 14:31:17
Message-ID: 202403201431.ladqlq4vnu2t@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024-Mar-19, Tom Lane wrote:

> The bit about "(Not meaningful if the relation has no on-disk file.)"
> is not correct, and now it's adjacent to text that contradicts it.
> Maybe more like
>
> The tablespace in which this relation is stored.
> If zero, the database's default tablespace is implied.
> Not meaningful if the relation has no on-disk file,
> except for partitioned tables, where this is the tablespace
> in which partitions will be created when one is not
> specified in the creation command.

I like that wording, thanks, pushed like that.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-03-20 14:32:53 Re: documentation structure
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-03-20 14:31:16 Re: add AVX2 support to simd.h