| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Keith Fiske <keith(dot)fiske(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |
| Date: | 2018-04-12 19:05:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobYQAm1ZNtGNKyY8+_QCToGY3i4YWScF0No0tzQ+Sjkpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-12 19:10:35 | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-12 18:55:53 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |