| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: propagating replica identity to partitions |
| Date: | 2019-02-21 00:37:18 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j+Uvqzc6-PV3_akO_gAucxm+rFngNkfDz9Uyu9kp2gpbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 18:51, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
I don't buy Simon's argument that we should treat TABLESPACE
> differently because the tables might be really big and take a long
> time to move. I agree that this could well be true, but nobody is
> proposing to remove the ability to move tables individually or to use
> ONLY here. Allowing TABLESPACE to recurse just gives people one
> additional choice that they don't have today: to move everything at
> once. We don't lose any functionality by enabling that.
>
Doing that would add the single largest footgun in Postgres, given that
command's current behavior and the size of partitioned tables.
If it moved partitions concurrently I'd feel differently.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-21 00:40:44 | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-02-21 00:36:06 | Re: Set fallback_application_name for a walreceiver to cluster_name |