Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Date: 2025-06-05 20:04:45
Message-ID: aEH4XYwrlyvjZUvE@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 01:57:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> How does the RMT feel about this change? Nathan, would you be OK with
> that? It's not a big problem, as well, if the code is kept as-is, but
> as it's a simple change..

IMHO a case can be reasonably made that this is an oversight in the related
commit. I've added the rest of the RMT here in case they see it
differently.

The patch LGTM, too.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2025-06-05 20:14:32 Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-06-05 20:01:07 Re: postmaster uses more CPU in 18 beta1 with io_method=io_uring