On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 3:08 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 6:52 PM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > Not just to throw a wrench in there, but... Should this perhaps be a > tablespace option? ISTM having different filesystems for them is a good > reason to use tablespaces in the first place, and then being able to pick > different options... > > We discussed that a bit earlier in the thread. Some problems about > layering violations and general weirdness, I recall trying it even. > On the flip side, is it right to declare very local > filesystem-specific choices in a system catalogue that is replicated > and affects replicas? > What about a fancier GUC that can reference tablespaces? > Wouldn't that be something that applies to *all* the tablespace configs then, taht is a proper movement of the goalposts? :) Such as being able to set random_page_cost per tablespace to different values on different machines. I agree that it would be useful though. But it seems like a different patch, if useful, and one that should be generic? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
