From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #19686: Rolling back SET TABLESPACE
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:23:25 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <769660.1790775621.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:40:21 -0400
Message-ID: <769661.1790775621@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/769661.1790775621%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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