| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Updated ALTER TABLE ... SET TABLESPACE patch |
| Date: | 2004-07-12 01:56:31 |
| Message-ID: | 3322.1089597391@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Sequences are too small to be worth moving around, and may someday be
>> reimplemented in a fashion that doesn't use up a separate disk file for
>> each one. If we allow SET TABLESPACE on them we will be limiting our
>> future flexibility for no useful gain.
> Why do we allow them to be created in tablespaces in the first place
> then? Seems like a bit of a misfeature? I mean we don't allow views in
> tablespaces...
I had forgotten that the original patch allowed that. Personally I'd
vote for taking it out, for the above-stated reasons --- any objections?
If people do want to have it then we can instead change ALTER SET
TABLESPACE to allow sequences; but we'd also need a nontrivial addition
to pg_dump, so there had better be a better reason than "might be nice
to have".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-12 02:00:16 | Re: Updated ALTER TABLE ... SET TABLESPACE patch |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-12 01:38:18 | Re: Updated ALTER TABLE ... SET TABLESPACE patch |