| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ejberdecia(at)yahoo(dot)com" <ejberdecia(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15954: Unable to alter partitioned table to set log |
| Date: | 2019-08-14 03:26:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_PzFNe0kQdt_9EsEtr4xqMd0oBW5umswr=90ycs+MRpA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:51, Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberdecia(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Is there any way to check in the code whether the table is a parent and then allow the execution of the alter accordingly?
Blocking ALTER TABLE ... SET [UN]LOGGED; on a partitioned table is a
trivial change. The question is, if we were to change this and back
patch then it could break user code.
> Or are you saying that any empty table we would not be able to change the unlogged state?
>
> Should the logic to alter the table just ignore whether the table is empty or not?
Not sure what the table being empty has to do with it.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Efrain J. Berdecia | 2019-08-14 03:32:50 | Re: BUG #15954: Unable to alter partitioned table to set logged |
| Previous Message | easteregg | 2019-08-14 03:23:53 | RE: BUG #15953: performance issues using 11.5-1.pgdg+1 over 11.5-1 |