Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYn66t0PL=s6Zz6fAh2GewBLk7N5E1oskG+6H4hSHSahQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent?  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 12:50:40PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > How about we record the tablespace option for the partitioned table in
> > reltablespace instead of saving it as 0.  Newly created partitions
> > which don't have a TABLESPACE mentioned in the CREATE TABLE command
> > should be created in their direct parent partitioned tables
> > tablespace.
>
> I have seen enough complains on the mailing lists regarding the way
> tablespaces are handled for partitioned tables and their partitions that
> it looks like a very good idea to make the tablespace being inherited
> automatically, by setting up reltablespace to a non-zero value even if
> a partitioned table has no physical presence.  Of course not on v11 or
> older releases, just on HEAD.  It is no good to have partitioned indexes
> and partitioned tables being handling inconsistently for such things.

+1.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)