Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2020-05-08T08:17:07Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Propagate ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE to indexes
- 03a8a5f2d4a1 11.8 landed
- bf7233ee4a54 12.3 landed
- 501e41dd3cb9 13.0 landed

On 2020-05-06 16:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-04-22 16:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2020-04-22 01:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I'm surprised that this hasn't applied yet, because:
>>>
>>> On 2020-Apr-09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>
>>>> One thing to remember is that the current situation is broken.  While you
>>>> can set index columns to have different storage than the corresponding table
>>>> columns, pg_dump does not preserve that, because it dumps indexes after
>>>> ALTER TABLE commands.  So at the moment, having these two things different
>>>> isn't really supported.
>>>
>>> So I have to ask -- are you planning to get this patch pushed and
>>> backpatched?
>>
>> I think I should, but I figured I want to give some extra time for
>> people to consider the horror that I created in the test_decoding tests.
> 
> OK then, if there are no last-minute objects, I'll commit this for the
> upcoming minor releases.

I have committed this and backpatched to PG12 and PG11.  Before that, 
the catalog manipulation code is factored quite differently and it would 
be more complicated to backpatch and I didn't find that worth it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services