On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:48:58PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-09-19 12:06:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yeah, my gut is telling me that this would be the best approach for now, >> still I am not sure that this is the best move in the long term. > > ISTM heap_sync() would be the entirely wrong layer to handle > partitioning. For several reasons: 1) With pluggable storage, we want to > have multiple different table implementations, doing the syncing on the > heap_* for partitions would thus be wrong. 2) In just about all cases we > only want to sync a few partitions, there's not really a use-case for > doing syncs across all partitions imo.
I haven't considered things from the angle of 1), which is a very good point. 2) is also a good argument. >> All the other callers of heap_sync don't care about partitioned >> tables, so we could add an assertion on RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE. > > Or rather, it should assert the expected relkinds? Yeah, I think that we are coming back to what heap_create assumes in term of which relkinds should have storage or not, so a global macro able to do the work would be adapted perhaps? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
