Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Date
Msg-id ZurvG45F3lQHLw4G@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:42:31AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:56:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> How about inventing a new ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE and make a clean split
>> between both relkinds?  I'd guess that blocking both SET LOGGED and
>> UNLOGGED for partitioned tables is the best move, even if it is
>> possible to block only one or the other, of course.
> 
> I gave it a try, and while it is much more invasive, it is also much
> more consistent with the rest of the file.

This looks reasonable to me.  Could we also use ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE to
remove the partitioned table check in ATExecAddIndexConstraint()?

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable)
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica.