On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 15:26, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-Apr-15, David Rowley wrote: > > > To be honest, if I'd done a better job of thinking through the > > implications of this tablespace inheritance in ca4103025d, then I'd > > probably have not bothered submitting a patch for it. We could easily > > revert that, but we'd still be left with the same behaviour in > > partitioned indexes, which is in PG11. > > Well, I suppose if we do decide to revert it for tables, we should do it > for both tables and indexes. But as I said, I'm not yet convinced that > this is the best way forward.
Ok. Any ideas or suggestions on how we move on from here? It seems like a bit of a stalemate. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services