On 1/25/18 12:27 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от 25 января 2018 11:29:34 пользователь Tom Lane написал:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Well, maybe the right answer is to address that.  It's clear to me
>>>> why that would happen if we store these things as reloptions on the
>>>> toast table, but can't they be stored on the parent table?
>>> Actually, Nikolay provided a possible solution: if you execute ALTER
>>> TABLE SET (toast.foobar = xyz), and a toast table doesn't exist, create
>>> one at that point.
>> That adds a lot of overhead if you never actually need the toast table.
> I think this overhead case is not that terrible if it is properly warned ;-)
>> Still, maybe it's an appropriate amount of effort compared to the size
>> of the use-case for this.
> If you came to some final conclustion, please close the commiffest item with 
> "Return with feedback" resolution, and I write another patch... 

I think this patch should be marked Returned with Feedback since it
appears there is no consensus on whether it is useful or correct, so I
have done that.

If I got it wrong I'm happy to move it to the next CF in Waiting for
Author state instead.


Reply via email to