On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 07:45:06PM +1300, David Rowley wrote: > Partitioned indexes have this similar inherit tablespace from parent > feature, so ca4103025dfe26 was intended to align the behaviour of the > two. Partitioned indexes happen not to suffer from the same issue as > the indexes are attached after their creation similar to what I > propose above. > > Can anyone see any fundamental reason that we should not create a > partitioned table by doing CREATE TABLE followed by ATTACH PARTITION? > If not, I'll write a patch that fixes it that way.
The part for partitioned indexes is already battle-proven, so if the part for partitioned tables can be consolidated the same way that would be really nice. > As far as I can see, the biggest fundamental difference with doing > things this way will be that the column order of partitions will be > preserved, where before it would inherit the order of the partitioned > table. I'm a little unsure if doing this column reordering was an > intended side-effect or not. I don't see any direct issues with that to be honest thinking about it.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
