Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | a9e80081-25a2-b2fa-313c-fb86d2549546@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-05-06 16:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-04-22 16:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 2020-04-22 01:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I'm surprised that this hasn't applied yet, because: >>> >>> On 2020-Apr-09, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> >>>> One thing to remember is that the current situation is broken. While you >>>> can set index columns to have different storage than the corresponding table >>>> columns, pg_dump does not preserve that, because it dumps indexes after >>>> ALTER TABLE commands. So at the moment, having these two things different >>>> isn't really supported. >>> >>> So I have to ask -- are you planning to get this patch pushed and >>> backpatched? >> >> I think I should, but I figured I want to give some extra time for >> people to consider the horror that I created in the test_decoding tests. > > OK then, if there are no last-minute objects, I'll commit this for the > upcoming minor releases. I have committed this and backpatched to PG12 and PG11. Before that, the catalog manipulation code is factored quite differently and it would be more complicated to backpatch and I didn't find that worth it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: