From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes |
Date: | 2020-04-22 14:26:48 |
Message-ID: | 8be09419-ed3d-93f9-9c29-2824b44a2c56@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-04-22 01:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm surprised that this hasn't applied yet, because:
>
> On 2020-Apr-09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> One thing to remember is that the current situation is broken. While you
>> can set index columns to have different storage than the corresponding table
>> columns, pg_dump does not preserve that, because it dumps indexes after
>> ALTER TABLE commands. So at the moment, having these two things different
>> isn't really supported.
>
> So I have to ask -- are you planning to get this patch pushed and
> backpatched?
I think I should, but I figured I want to give some extra time for
people to consider the horror that I created in the test_decoding tests.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2020-04-22 14:37:25 | Re: Parallel Append can break run-time partition pruning |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-04-22 14:23:57 | Re: Fix for pg_statio_all_tables |