Re: table inheritance versus column compression and storage settings

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: table inheritance versus column compression and storage settings
Date: 2024-02-12 15:18:12
Message-ID: eb076b15-64b5-4992-b232-9e00603e0849@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08.02.24 08:20, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:47 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 0001 fixes compression inheritance
>> 0002 fixes storage inheritance
>>
>
> The first patch does not update compression_1.out which makes CI
> unhappy. Here's patchset fixing that.

The changed behavior looks good to me. The tests are good, the code
changes are pretty straightforward.

Did you by any change check that pg_dump dumps the resulting structures
correctly? I notice in tablecmds.c that ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE
recurses but ALTER COLUMN SET COMPRESSION does not. I don't understand
why that is, and I wonder whether it affects pg_dump.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-02-12 15:27:45 Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2024-02-12 14:38:39 Re: [PATCH] Avoid mixing custom and OpenSSL BIO functions