On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 6:52 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Not just to throw a wrench in there, but... Should this perhaps be a tablespace option? ISTM having different filesystems for them is a good reason to use tablespaces in the first place, and then being able to pick different options...
We discussed that a bit earlier in the thread. Some problems about layering violations and general weirdness, I recall trying it even. On the flip side, is it right to declare very local filesystem-specific choices in a system catalogue that is replicated and affects replicas? What about a fancier GUC that can reference tablespaces?
Wouldn't that be something that applies to *all* the tablespace configs then, taht is a proper movement of the goalposts? :) Such as being able to set random_page_cost per tablespace to different values on different machines. I agree that it would be useful though. But it seems like a different patch, if useful, and one that should be generic?
