On 2018-09-19 12:06:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to modify copy.c to just perform the heap_sync > > on just the partitions it touches? > > Yeah, my gut is telling me that this would be the best approach for now, > still I am not sure that this is the best move in the long term.
ISTM heap_sync() would be the entirely wrong layer to handle partitioning. For several reasons: 1) With pluggable storage, we want to have multiple different table implementations, doing the syncing on the heap_* for partitions would thus be wrong. 2) In just about all cases we only want to sync a few partitions, there's not really a use-case for doing syncs across all partitions imo. > All the other callers of heap_sync don't care about partitioned > tables, so we could add an assertion on RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE. Or rather, it should assert the expected relkinds? Greetings, Andres Freund
