Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 03:44:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 04:01:58PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> My current thinking is that it would be better to disallow marking
>> partitioned tables as LOGGED/UNLOGGED and continue to have users explicitly
>> specify what they want for each partition.  It'd still probably be good to
>> expand the documentation, but a clear ERROR when trying to set a
>> partitioned table as UNLOGGED would hopefully clue folks in.
> 
> The addition of the new LOGGED keyword is not required if we limit
> ourselves to an error when defining UNLOGGED, so if we drop this
> proposal, let's also drop this part entirely and keep DefineRelation()
> simpler.

+1

> Actually, is really issuing an error the best thing we can
> do after so many years allowing this grammar flavor to go through,
> even if it is perhaps accidental?  relpersistence is marked correctly
> for partitioned tables, it's just useless.  Expanding the
> documentation sounds fine to me, one way or the other, to tell what
> happens with partitioned tables.

IMHO continuing to allow partitioned tables to be marked UNLOGGED just
preserves the illusion that it does something.  An ERROR could help dispel
that misconception.

-- 
nathan