On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 5:06 AM Jacob Champion <jchamp...@timescale.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:17 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Outside the scope of special TimescaleDB tables and the speculated > > pg_partman old-style table migration, will this proposed new feature > > have any other application? In other words, do you know if this > > proposal will be of any benefit to the *normal* users who just have > > native PostgreSQL inherited tables they want to replicate? > > I think it comes down to why an inheritance scheme was used. If it's > because you want to group rows into named, queryable subsets (e.g. the > "cities/capitals" example in the docs [1]), I don't think this has any > utility, because I assume you'd want to replicate your subsets as-is. >
I also think so and your idea to have a function like pg_set_logical_root() seems to make the inheritance hierarchy behaves as a declarative partitioning scheme for the purpose of logical replication. > But if it's because you've implemented a partitioning scheme of your > own (the docs still list reasons you might want to [2], even today), > and all you ever really do is interact with the root table, I think > this feature will give you some of the same benefits that > publish_via_partition_root gives native partition users. We're very > much in that boat, but I don't know how many others are. > I agree that there may still be cases as pointed out by you where people want to use inheritance as a mechanism for partitioning but I feel those would still be in the minority. Personally, I am not very excited about this idea. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
