Hi,
> From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com]
> On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Amit Langote wrote:
> > > FWIW, I think Robert's criticism regarding not basing this on
inheritance
> > > scheme was not responded to.
> >
> > It was responded to by ignoring it. I didn't see anybody else
> > supporting the idea that inheritance is in any way a sane thing to base
> > partitioning on. Sure, we have accumulated lots of kludges over the
> > years to cope with the fact that, really, it doesn't work very well. So
> > what. We can keep them, I don't care.
>
> As far as I understdood Robert's criticism it was more about the
> internals, than about the userland representation. To me it's absolutely
> clear that 'real partitioning' userland shouldn't be based on the
> current hacks to allow it.
For my understanding:
By partitioning 'userland' representation, do you mean an implementation
choice where a partition is literally an inheritance child of the partitioned
table as registered in pg_inherits? Or something else?
Thanks,
Amit
