On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If you are operating on a partitioned table and set the replica identity
> to the primary key or a partitioned index of that partitioned table,
> then I think, by definition of what it means to be a partitioned index,
> that applies to the whole partition hierarchy.
>
> Aside from that theoretical consideration, what would be the practical
> use of not doing that?
FWIW I agree about the part of inheriting the replica identity of the
parent when defining a partition on it. That's also.. Instinctive.
> I'm slightly baffled that we would even allow having different owners on
> different partitions, but that seems to be a separate discussion.
Different owners can make sense for multiple layers of partitions
where the children have less restrictions than the children. Imagine
for example a table listing the population of a country, with children
partitioned by regions, and grand-children partitioned by cities. The
top-most parent could be owned by a minister, and lower levels apply
to the region administrator, down to the city administrators.
--
Michael
