Amit Kapila <> writes:
> What will such a storage parameter (default_tablespace) mean at table
> level and how it will different from existing default_tablespace?  I
> think the usage asked by Amos is quite genuine, but not sure if
> introducing default_tablespace as a storage level parameter is the
> best way to address it.  Another way could be that we allow the user
> to specify something like tablespace_name <inherit parent>/<inherit
> table> or something like that.

That seems overcomplicated, and it will also pose quite some hazard
for pg_dump for example.  It feels like "action at a distance", in
that creation of an index will now depend on properties that aren't
immediately obvious.

I was thinking about introducing a new GUC, named something like
default_index_tablespace, which would need to have at least these

1. index tablespace is same as default_tablespace (the backwards
compatible, and therefore the default, behavior).

2. index tablespace is same as table's tablespace.

3. default_index_tablespace names a specific tablespace.

Point 3 isn't in the current request but I'm pretty sure I've heard
it requested in the past, so that people can conveniently put all
tables in tablespace X and all indexes in tablespace Y.

If we just did points 1 and 2 then a bool GUC would suffice.  I'm
not sure how to handle all three cases cleanly.  We could define
default_index_tablespace as empty to get point 1 or a tablespace
name to get point 3, but that leaves us having to use some magic
string for point 2, which would be messy --- what if it conflicts
with someone's choice of a tablespace name?

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to