On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
>> <jonathan.k...@excoventures.com> wrote:
>> > If there are no strong objections I am going to add this to the “Older 
>> > Bugs”
>> > section of Open Items in a little bit.
>> I strongly object.  This is not a bug.  The TABLESPACE clause doing
>> exactly what it was intended to do, which is determine where all of
>> the storage associated with the partitioned table itself goes.  It so
>> happens that there is no storage, so now somebody would like to
>> repurpose the same option to do something different.  That's fine, but
>> it doesn't make the current behavior wrong.  And we're certainly not
>> going to back-patch a behavior change like that.
> Keep in mind that we do not offer any promises to fix items listed in
> the Older Bugs section; as I said elsewhere, it's mostly a dumping
> ground for things that get ignored later.  I think it's fine to add it
> there, if Jon wants to keep track of it, on the agreement that it will
> probably not lead to a backpatched fix.


If it's not a bug, then it doesn't make sense to add it to a list of
bugs just as a way of keeping track of it.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to