| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
| Date: | 2009-11-20 07:08:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1258700892.27757.1360.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >>
> >> Settling on a syntax, and an internal representation for that syntax,
> >
> > I've been under the impression that this was only about syntax. What are the
> > internal additions?
>
> I haven't looked at it in detail, but it adds a new pg_partition
> table. Whether that table is suitably structured for use by the
> optimizer is not clear to me.
If it does, then my review comments to Kedar still apply:
* why do we want another catalog table? what's wrong with pg_inherits?
It might need additional columns, and it certainly needs another index.
* We need an internal data structure (discussed on this thread also).
Leaving stuff in various catalog tables would not be the same thing at
all.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-11-20 07:31:53 | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-20 07:05:41 | Re: enable-thread-safety defaults? |