Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:38:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
> > > to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is
> > > too heavy administratively, error-prone, and performance-heavy.
> >
> > On the contrary, I think there was lots of progress; there's lots of
> > useful feedback from the initial design proposal I posted. I am a bit
> > sad to admit that I'm not working on it at the moment as I had
> > originally planned, though, because other priorities slipped in and I am
> > not able to work on this for a while. Therefore if someone else wants
> > to work on this topic, be my guest -- otherwise I hope to get on it in a
> > few months.
>
> Oh, I just meant code progress --- I agree the discussion was fruitful.
>
FWIW, I think Robert's criticism regarding not basing this on inheritance
scheme was not responded to. He mentions a patch by Itagaki-san (four years
ago, abandoned unfortunately); details here:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning#Active_Work_In_Progress
This patch could be resurrected fixing some parts of it as was suggested at
the time. But, the most important decisions regarding the patch like storage
structure, syntax etc. would require building some consensus whether this is a
worthwhile direction. At least some consideration must be given to the idea
that we might want to have remote partitions backed by FDW infrastructure in
near future, although that may not be the primary goal of partitioning effort.
What do others think?
--
Amit
