Re: On partitioning

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't think that's mutually exclusive with the idea of
>> partitions-as-tables. I mean, you can add code to the ALTER TABLE
>> path that says if (i_am_not_the_partitioning_root) ereport(ERROR, ...)
>> wherever you want.
>
> That'll be a lot of places you'll need to touch. More fundamentally: Why
> should we name something a table that's not one?

Well, I'm not convinced that it isn't one. And adding a new relkind
will involve a bunch of code churn, too. But I don't much care to
pre-litigate this: when someone has got a patch, we can either agree
that the approach is OK or argue that it is problematic because X. I
think we need to hammer down the design in broad strokes first, and
I'm not sure we're totally there yet.

>> - Direct access to individual partitions to bypass
>> tuple-routing/query-planning overhead.
>
> I think that might be ok in some cases, but in general I'd be very wary
> to allow that. I think it might be ok to allow direct read access, but
> everything else I'd be opposed. I'd much rather go the route of allowing
> to few things and then gradually opening up if required than the other
> way round (as that pretty much will never happen because it'll break
> deployed systems).

Why?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company