On 2019-Apr-14, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-04-14 10:38:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > It's entirely possible BTW that this whole business of inheriting > > tablespace from the partitioned table is broken and should be thrown > > out. I certainly don't see any compelling reason for partitions to > > act differently from regular tables in this respect, and the more > > problems we find with the idea, the less attractive it seems. > > Indeed. After discovering during the tableam work, and trying to write > tests for the equivalent feature for tableam, I decided that just not > allowing AM specifications for partitioned tables is the right call - at > least until the desired behaviour is clearer. The discussion of the last > few days makes me think so even more.
To be honest, when doing that feature I neglected to pay attention to (read: forgot about) default_tablespace, and it's mostly the interactions with that feature that makes this partitioned table stuff so complicated. I'm not 100% convinced yet that we need to throw it out completely, but I'm less sure now about it than I was before. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services