Re: Partitioning option for COPY

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>
Cc: Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioning option for COPY
Date: 2009-11-23 15:26:16
Message-ID: 1258989976.27757.5756.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:39 -0500, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:

> I think you should read the thread and the patch

I did read the thread and patch in full before posting. My opinions are
given to help you and the community towards a desirable common goal.

I was unaware you were developing these ideas and so was unable to
provide comments until now. My review of Kedar's patch in July did lay
out in general terms a specific implementation route for future work on
partitioning. I had thought I might not have made those comments clearly
enough, so gave a more specific description of what I consider to be a
more workable and general solution for cacheing and using partitioning
metadata.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-11-23 15:28:35 Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update
Previous Message Emmanuel Cecchet 2009-11-23 15:24:26 Re: Partitioning option for COPY