On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > If you are operating on a partitioned table and set the replica identity > to the primary key or a partitioned index of that partitioned table, > then I think, by definition of what it means to be a partitioned index, > that applies to the whole partition hierarchy. > > Aside from that theoretical consideration, what would be the practical > use of not doing that?
FWIW I agree about the part of inheriting the replica identity of the parent when defining a partition on it. That's also.. Instinctive. > I'm slightly baffled that we would even allow having different owners on > different partitions, but that seems to be a separate discussion. Different owners can make sense for multiple layers of partitions where the children have less restrictions than the children. Imagine for example a table listing the population of a country, with children partitioned by regions, and grand-children partitioned by cities. The top-most parent could be owned by a minister, and lower levels apply to the region administrator, down to the city administrators. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature