On 2019-Apr-14, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-14 10:38:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It's entirely possible BTW that this whole business of inheriting
> > tablespace from the partitioned table is broken and should be thrown
> > out. I certainly don't see any compelling reason for partitions to
> > act differently from regular tables in this respect, and the more
> > problems we find with the idea, the less attractive it seems.
>
> Indeed. After discovering during the tableam work, and trying to write
> tests for the equivalent feature for tableam, I decided that just not
> allowing AM specifications for partitioned tables is the right call - at
> least until the desired behaviour is clearer. The discussion of the last
> few days makes me think so even more.
To be honest, when doing that feature I neglected to pay attention to
(read: forgot about) default_tablespace, and it's mostly the
interactions with that feature that makes this partitioned table stuff
so complicated. I'm not 100% convinced yet that we need to throw it out
completely, but I'm less sure now about it than I was before.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
