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.
*shrug* 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
