From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: propagating replica identity to partitions |
Date: | 2019-03-23 01:33:54 |
Message-ID: | 20190323013354.GI20584@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If you are operating on a partitioned table and set the replica identity
> to the primary key or a partitioned index of that partitioned table,
> then I think, by definition of what it means to be a partitioned index,
> that applies to the whole partition hierarchy.
>
> Aside from that theoretical consideration, what would be the practical
> use of not doing that?
FWIW I agree about the part of inheriting the replica identity of the
parent when defining a partition on it. That's also.. Instinctive.
> I'm slightly baffled that we would even allow having different owners on
> different partitions, but that seems to be a separate discussion.
Different owners can make sense for multiple layers of partitions
where the children have less restrictions than the children. Imagine
for example a table listing the population of a country, with children
partitioned by regions, and grand-children partitioned by cities. The
top-most parent could be owned by a minister, and lower levels apply
to the region administrator, down to the city administrators.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-23 01:38:36 | Re: Special role for subscriptions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-23 01:27:23 | Re: Introduce MIN/MAX aggregate functions to pg_lsn |