Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:17:47 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Message-ID: <ZurvG45F3lQHLw4G@nathan>
References: <ZjMte53zQpZNfTWv@paquier.xyz>
 <Zs4-xnNDMEdiKQXo@nathan>
 <ZtAY3ZkRVAIp3sxG@paquier.xyz>
 <ZtCKiJZaoYBHBv05@nathan>
 <ZtZW4gEJOPmeP-nT@paquier.xyz>
 <ZtZn0-JVQuBUbpWw@nathan>
 <Zta_CFeFCx7bMBL8@paquier.xyz>
 <ZtcsLnUSuALqEyE-@nathan>
 <Zt6cDnwSvnuLLnak@paquier.xyz>
 <Zt-V90bS4diq4e0Q@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zt-V90bS4diq4e0Q@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZurvG45F3lQHLw4G%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:42:31AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:56:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> How about inventing a new ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE and make a clean split
>> between both relkinds?  I'd guess that blocking both SET LOGGED and
>> UNLOGGED for partitioned tables is the best move, even if it is
>> possible to block only one or the other, of course.
> 
> I gave it a try, and while it is much more invasive, it is also much
> more consistent with the rest of the file.

This looks reasonable to me.  Could we also use ATT_PARTITIONED_TABLE to
remove the partitioned table check in ATExecAddIndexConstraint()?

-- 
nathan