Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes:
> What will such a storage parameter (default_tablespace) mean at table
> level and how it will different from existing default_tablespace? I
> think the usage asked by Amos is quite genuine, but not sure if
> introducing default_tablespace as a storage level parameter is the
> best way to address it. Another way could be that we allow the user
> to specify something like tablespace_name <inherit parent>/<inherit
> table> or something like that.
That seems overcomplicated, and it will also pose quite some hazard
for pg_dump for example. It feels like "action at a distance", in
that creation of an index will now depend on properties that aren't
immediately obvious.
I was thinking about introducing a new GUC, named something like
default_index_tablespace, which would need to have at least these
behaviors:
1. index tablespace is same as default_tablespace (the backwards
compatible, and therefore the default, behavior).
2. index tablespace is same as table's tablespace.
3. default_index_tablespace names a specific tablespace.
Point 3 isn't in the current request but I'm pretty sure I've heard
it requested in the past, so that people can conveniently put all
tables in tablespace X and all indexes in tablespace Y.
If we just did points 1 and 2 then a bool GUC would suffice. I'm
not sure how to handle all three cases cleanly. We could define
default_index_tablespace as empty to get point 1 or a tablespace
name to get point 3, but that leaves us having to use some magic
string for point 2, which would be messy --- what if it conflicts
with someone's choice of a tablespace name?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
