Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Simon Riggs
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 1241645655.6109.36.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas)
Responses: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (henk de wit, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
   Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
     Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Alvaro Herrera, )
     Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
      Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (, )
       Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
        Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (, )
         Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
         Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
          Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Craig Ringer, )
       Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Craig Ringer, )
   Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
    Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )

On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 11:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> The problem has been finding someone who has both the time and the
> ability to do the work.

Unfortunately there has been significant debate over which parts of
partitioning need to be improved. My own view is that considerable
attention needs to be applied to both the executor and planner to
improve matters and that syntax improvements are largely irrelevant,
though seductive.

Deep improvements will require significant analysis, agreement, effort
and skill. What we have now took approximately 20 days to implement,
with later patches adding about another 10-20 days work. I'd estimate
the required work as 60-100 days work from primary author, plus planning
and discussion time. YMMV.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support



pgsql-performance by date:

From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..