From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness |
Date: | 2024-08-29 14:49:44 |
Message-ID: | ZtCKiJZaoYBHBv05@nathan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 03:44:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 04:01:58PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> My current thinking is that it would be better to disallow marking
>> partitioned tables as LOGGED/UNLOGGED and continue to have users explicitly
>> specify what they want for each partition. It'd still probably be good to
>> expand the documentation, but a clear ERROR when trying to set a
>> partitioned table as UNLOGGED would hopefully clue folks in.
>
> The addition of the new LOGGED keyword is not required if we limit
> ourselves to an error when defining UNLOGGED, so if we drop this
> proposal, let's also drop this part entirely and keep DefineRelation()
> simpler.
+1
> Actually, is really issuing an error the best thing we can
> do after so many years allowing this grammar flavor to go through,
> even if it is perhaps accidental? relpersistence is marked correctly
> for partitioned tables, it's just useless. Expanding the
> documentation sounds fine to me, one way or the other, to tell what
> happens with partitioned tables.
IMHO continuing to allow partitioned tables to be marked UNLOGGED just
preserves the illusion that it does something. An ERROR could help dispel
that misconception.
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frédéric Yhuel | 2024-08-29 14:53:04 | Re: pgstattuple: fix free space calculation |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-08-29 14:34:32 | Re: 039_end_of_wal: error in "xl_tot_len zero" test |