public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Andrew <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:43:56 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230316090352.v2m2d473fcv5tli6@jrouhaud>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<20230311030154.pg63uspio35h4a6t@jrouhaud>
	<[email protected]>
	<20230311033232.g6jgkuzxdawepsbe@jrouhaud>
	<[email protected]>
	<20230313083314.pivmgfu36fi4eu2n@jrouhaud>
	<[email protected]>
	<20230316090352.v2m2d473fcv5tli6@jrouhaud>

Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:39:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, we need to do both.  Attached find an updated patch series:

> I didn't find a CF entry, is it intended?

Yeah, it's there:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/42/4226/

> I'm not sure if you intend to keep the current 0002 - 0003 separation, but if
> yes the part about te->defn and possible fallback should be moved to 0003.  In
> 0002 we're only looking at the COPY statement.

I was intending to smash it all into one commit --- the separation is
just to ease review.

> I know you're only inheriting this comment, but isn't it well outdated and not
> accurate anymore?  I'm assuming that "archiving is not on" was an acceptable
> way to mean "wal_level < archive" at some point, but it's now completely
> misleading.

Sure, want to propose wording?

> Hash partitioning was added with pg11, should we bypass pg10 too with a comment
> saying that we only care about hash, at least for the forseeable future?

Good point.  With v10 already out of support, it hardly matters in the
real world, but we might as well not expend cycles when we clearly
needn't.

> More generally, I also think that forcing --load-via-partition-root for
> known unsafe partitioning seems like the best compromise.  I'm not sure if we
> should have an option to turn it off though.

I think the odds of that yielding a usable dump are nil, so I don't
see why we should bother.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (8+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox