On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 15:26, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Apr-15, David Rowley wrote:
>
> > To be honest, if I'd done a better job of thinking through the
> > implications of this tablespace inheritance in ca4103025d, then I'd
> > probably have not bothered submitting a patch for it. We could easily
> > revert that, but we'd still be left with the same behaviour in
> > partitioned indexes, which is in PG11.
>
> Well, I suppose if we do decide to revert it for tables, we should do it
> for both tables and indexes. But as I said, I'm not yet convinced that
> this is the best way forward.
Ok. Any ideas or suggestions on how we move on from here? It seems
like a bit of a stalemate.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
