Message-ID: <87ca2262da500df70f12bb33e992197a0c903094.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>, Heikki
 Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io>,
 Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>,  Andres Freund
 <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila
 <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,  Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Dilip
 Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 14:18:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <YQOoq17l7qvTBg1g@paquier.xyz>
References: <20210716034923.GL20208@telsasoft.com>
	 <CALDaNm1f_6DoFycXBVu6fEKeWjm3Xf3gSM5TDp13tiMY3zpThw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20210722094154.GD19620@telsasoft.com> <YP+4CEOMofngeDJi@paquier.xyz>
	 <YQDNwJp3amIJKizD@paquier.xyz>
	 <10785e3e9456a5d761164d3e60d9c4981b80e321.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <YQDk8UNge1b8dJXA@paquier.xyz>
	 <bfad9843733672c468783532fd440731aceb1f8f.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <YQJKV29/1a60uG68@paquier.xyz>
	 <d6a66a0ab44b43e416ee95aeab32d6b8afab8d0a.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <YQOoq17l7qvTBg1g@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/87ca2262da500df70f12bb33e992197a0c903094.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-07-30 at 16:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Looking at the past, it was the intention of 05f3f9c7 to go through
> the hook even if SET TABLESPACE does not move the relation, so you
> are
> right that ALTER TABLE is inconsistent to not do the same for LOGGED,
> UNLOGGED and ACCESS METHOD if all of them do nothing to trigger a
> relation rewrite.
> 
> Now, I am a bit biased about this change and if we actually need it
> for the no-op path.  If we were to do that, I think that we need to
> add in AlteredTableInfo a way to track down if any of those
> subcommands have been used to allow the case of rewrite == 0 to
> launch
> the hook even if these are no-ops.  And I am not sure if that's worth
> the code complication for an edge case.  We definitely should have a
> hook call for the case of rewrite > 0, though.

It sounds like anything we do here should be part of a larger change to
make it consistent. So I'm fine with the patch you posted.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis