From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 |
Date: | 2008-03-21 15:53:01 |
Message-ID: | 23163.1206114781@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> NikhilS wrote:
>> Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
>> on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
>> be needed in the first place?
>>
>> I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here,
>> before deciding the further course of actions.
> I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
> --- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
> compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
> once it is applied.
It would be equally unwise to apply a stopgap patch if we're not certain
it will be upward compatible with what we want to do later.
I haven't been through the partitioning threads at all yet, but I think
what we probably want to have when we emerge from commit fest is some
consensus on what the road map is for partitioning.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Warren Turkal | 2008-03-21 16:44:19 | Re: timestamp datatype cleanup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-21 15:47:52 | Re: Commit Fest (was Re: Sort Refinement) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-03-21 16:53:44 | Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-21 15:45:11 | Re: Proposal: new large object API |