On 2018-Nov-02, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/11/02 10:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > It seems to me that the current behavior is wanted in this case, because > > partitioned tables and partitioned indexes have no physical storage. > > Keith Fiske complained about this behavior for partitioned *tables* a few > months ago, which led to the following discussion: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKJS1f9PXYcT%2Bj%3DoyL-Lquz%3DScNwpRtmD7u9svLASUygBdbN8w%40mail.gmail.com > > It's Michael's message that was the last one on that thread. :) > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180413224007.GB27295%40paquier.xyz I agree with Fiske, FWIW. I think the current behavior results because people (including me) overlooked things, not because it was designed explicitly that way. > By the way, if we decide to do something about this, I think we do the > same for partitioned tables. I'm up for changing the behavior of partitioned tables in pg12 (please send a patch), but I'm up for changing the behavior of partitioned tables in pg11. > There are more than one interesting > behaviors possible that are mentioned in the above thread for when > parent's reltablespace is set/changed. I'm *NOT* proposing to move existing partitions to another tablespace, in any case. > IOW, I agree with Michael that if something will be back-patched to 11, it > should be a small patch to make the unsupported relkind error go away. I don't. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
