| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On partitioning |
| Date: | 2014-11-12 22:06:55 |
| Message-ID: | 30799.1415830015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I thought putting the partition boundaries into pg_inherits was a
> strange choice. I'd put it in pg_class, or in pg_partition if we
> decide to create that.
Yeah. I rather doubt that we want this mechanism to be very closely
tied to the existing inheritance features. If we do that, we are
going to need a boatload of error checks to prevent people from breaking
partitioned tables by applying the sort of twiddling that inheritance
allows.
> Maybe as anyarray, but I think pg_node_tree
> might even be better. That can also represent data of some arbitrary
> type, but it doesn't enforce that everything is uniform.
Of course, the more general you make it, the more likely that it'll be
impossible to optimize well.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-11-12 22:56:36 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-12 21:58:17 | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |