Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
>> <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com> wrote:
>> > If there are no strong objections I am going to add this to the “Older Bugs”
>> > section of Open Items in a little bit.
>>
>> I strongly object. This is not a bug. The TABLESPACE clause doing
>> exactly what it was intended to do, which is determine where all of
>> the storage associated with the partitioned table itself goes. It so
>> happens that there is no storage, so now somebody would like to
>> repurpose the same option to do something different. That's fine, but
>> it doesn't make the current behavior wrong. And we're certainly not
>> going to back-patch a behavior change like that.
>
> Keep in mind that we do not offer any promises to fix items listed in
> the Older Bugs section; as I said elsewhere, it's mostly a dumping
> ground for things that get ignored later. I think it's fine to add it
> there, if Jon wants to keep track of it, on the agreement that it will
> probably not lead to a backpatched fix.

*shrug*

If it's not a bug, then it doesn't make sense to add it to a list of
bugs just as a way of keeping track of it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company