Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-04-22 14:16:28 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think we can get out of this whole class of problems by forbidding the
>> TABLESPACE clause for partitioned rels from mentioning the database
>> tablespace -- that is, users either mention some *other* tablespace, or
>> partitions follow default_tablespace like everybody else. AFAICS with
>> that restriction this whole problem does not arise, and the patch may
>> become simpler. I'll give it a spin.
> Why is the obvious answer is to not just remove the whole tablespace
> inheritance behaviour? It's obviously ambiguous and hard to get right.
> I still don't see any usecase that even comes close to making the
> inheritance useful enough to justify the amount of work (code, tests,
> bugfixes) and docs that are required.
Yeah, that's where I'm at as well. Alvaro's proposal could be made
to work perhaps, but I think it would still end up with some odd
corner-case behaviors. One example is that "TABLESPACE X" would
be allowed if the database's default tablespace is Y, but if you
try to dump and restore into a database whose default is X, it'd be
rejected (?). The results after ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE X
are unclear too.
regards, tom lane
