| 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: | 2024-09-18 15:17:47 |
| Message-ID: | ZurvG45F3lQHLw4G@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:42:31AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:56:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> How about inventing a new ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE and make a clean split
>> between both relkinds? I'd guess that blocking both SET LOGGED and
>> UNLOGGED for partitioned tables is the best move, even if it is
>> possible to block only one or the other, of course.
>
> I gave it a try, and while it is much more invasive, it is also much
> more consistent with the rest of the file.
This looks reasonable to me. Could we also use ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE to
remove the partitioned table check in ATExecAddIndexConstraint()?
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-09-18 15:48:49 | Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-18 14:54:56 | Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable) |