From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Keith Fiske <keith(dot)fiske(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |
Date: | 2018-04-11 21:31:48 |
Message-ID: | 5bb6e645-6bcf-dcba-1dd0-14c95a80b683@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/11/18 17:19, Keith Fiske wrote:
> To me the current behavior is even more unintuitive. You tell it to put
> the parent table in a specific tablespace and it completely ignores the
> option and puts it in the default. Then when you go create children
> without specifying a tablespace, you don't see it going where you
> thought it would based on the parent's creation statement. Yes, you can
> tell each child where to go, but why not have at least a basic mechanism
> for setting a single tablespace value for a partition set into the
> parent itself the same way we're doing with indexes?
>
> If you set the tablespace you want a partition set to be in by setting
> that on that parent, I think that's pretty intuitive. If you want
> children to be in a different tablespace than the partition's default,
> then you can tell it that at child creation.
I agree it should do one or the other, but not what it's doing now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-11 21:38:24 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-04-11 21:29:38 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |