On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:40 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should be using the inheritance marker in the command to note
> whether to recurse to partitions? That is, if you say
> ALTER TABLE ONLY parent SET REPLICA IDENTITY
> then we don't recurse and just change the parent table and future
> partitions, whereas if you leave out the ONLY then it does affect
> existing partitions.
>
> However, I think TABLESPACE and any other property that involves
> rewriting tables wholesale can reasonably be expected to behave
> differently (w.r.t. recursing) from commands that just modify the
> catalogs. I think we already have such a distinction somewhere.
I don't really follow why that should be different, or why the user
should be expected to know or care whether a particular property
involves rewriting.
> I have no argument against somebody doing that, but I don't think I have
> the resources to do in in time for 12; on the other hand, leaving a
> known misfeature unfixed because nobody has looked for hypothetical
> similar bugs would be bad.
Oh, come on. If you don't have time to study the issue and come up
with a plan that can at least in theory be applied to all similar
cases in a principled way, whether or not you have time to apply it to
all of those cases, then you have no business committing anything at
all. You're basically saying that you don't have time to do this
right, so you're just going to do something at random and hope it
doesn't create too many problems later. That's terrible.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
