| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
| Date: | 2018-11-02 15:57:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYEo4Nbi+94Lkxi7YMC_-LxQWr2zXne_nkoVG_zJbYJ0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:02 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > By the way, if we decide to do something about this, I think we do the
> > same for partitioned tables.
>
> I'm up for changing the behavior of partitioned tables in pg12 (please
> send a patch), but I'm up for changing the behavior of partitioned
> tables in pg11.
Uh, what?
I strongly object to inserting behavior changes into released branches
on the grounds that the behavior wasn't considered carefully enough
before feature freeze. If we accept that as a justification, then
anybody can claim that any behavior change should be back-patched at
any time as long as they were the author of the original patch. But
that's not a recipe for a stable product. There's got to be a point
at which we say, yeah, you know, this is maybe not the perfect set of
design decisions, but we're going to support the decisions we made for
the next 5 years. And maybe we'll make better ones in the next
release.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-02 16:05:07 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-02 15:52:59 | Re: WIP Patch: Add a function that returns binary JSONB as a bytea |