From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #19686: Rolling back SET TABLESPACE
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:40:21 -0400
Message-ID: <769661.1790775621@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE8JnxPp+FN38=qTSFdnh67-u7wE6NqG2-Cc-ECUwO+BUG0XrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE8JnxP+Ubdj-kaxfgNt=3_FzD3GgOc3gEvPAvrXKfgTgH2q5w@mail.gmail.com>
<lqlli2yiai6dimhlzm47qiwuiz3qczt7snhzkx6qvrmmbltw6w@i7pvrw556qwg>
<714053.1790725180@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<arxTGn_8Fb9JLM0e@paquier.xyz>
<CAE8JnxPp+FN38=qTSFdnh67-u7wE6NqG2-Cc-ECUwO+BUG0XrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com> writes:
> What if we simply block modifications to the table in a transaction
> after it moved to a new tablespace?
If we were looking for a quick-n-dirty functionality-losing patch,
we'd just reject ALTER SET TABLESPACE within transaction blocks.
Perhaps that's the right answer for the back branches, but
I'd prefer not to go that way.
It seems to me that there is consensus among the senior hackers
who have looked at this about what to do. I'm not sure why you
are pushing for a more complex and more risky answer.
regards, tom lane
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19686: Rolling back SET TABLESPACE
In-Reply-To: <769661.1790775621@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox