On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 05:32, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > 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.
FWIW, I was trying to hint in [1] that this all might be more trouble than its worth. To be honest, if I'd done a better job of thinking through the implications of this tablespace inheritance in ca4103025d, then I'd probably have not bothered submitting a patch for it. We could easily revert that, but we'd still be left with the same behaviour in partitioned indexes, which is in PG11. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f-52x3o16fsd4=tbpkct9_e0ueg0lmzogxbqliuzsj...@mail.gmail.com -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services