Re: On partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Subject | Re: On partitioning |
Date | |
Msg-id | 00bb01d01447$55f83db0$01e8b910$@lab.ntt.co.jp Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: On partitioning (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: On partitioning
(Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: >> >> Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.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. >> > >> > That's right, I think at this point defining the top level >> > behaviour/design >> > is very important to proceed, we can decide about the better >> > implementation approach afterwards (may be once initial patch is ready, >> > because it might not be a major work to do it either way). So here's >> > where >> > we are on this point till now as per my understanding, I think that >> > direct >> > operations should be prohibited on partitions, you think that they >> > should be >> > allowed and Andres think that it might be better to allow direct >> > operations >> > on partitions for Read. >> >> FWIW in my original proposal I was rejecting some things that after >> further consideration turn out to be possible to allow; for instance >> directly referencing individual partitions in COPY. We could allow >> something like >> >> COPY lineitems PARTITION FOR VALUE '2000-01-01' TO STDOUT >> or maybe >> COPY PARTITION FOR VALUE '2000-01-01' ON TABLE lineitems TO STDOUT >> > or > COPY [TABLE] lineitems PARTITION FOR VALUE '2000-01-01' TO STDOUT > COPY [TABLE] lineitems PARTITION <part_1,part_2,> TO STDOUT > > I think we should try to support operations on partitions via main > table whereever it is required. > We can also allow to explicitly name a partition COPY [TABLE ] lineitems PARTITION lineitems_2001 TO STDOUT; Thanks, Amit
pgsql-hackers by date: