-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:10 -0800
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > > Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs
> > > are better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a
> > > patch which reflects this.
> >
> > Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
> > seem like a good idea.
>
> It does to me. I haven't found a case yet where rules worked even as
> well as triggers.
I have yet to see a place that rules are appropriate at all with
partitioning. The only half reasonable argument to their existence with
it is that they are easier for someone with an extremely simple
partitioning configuration.
However rules are so deficient on anything except the absolute most
basic example of partitioning that I think we are doing our new
partitioning users a disservice by stating anything about rules except
in passing.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> David.
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTdeuATb/zqfZUUQRAvf3AJ96e4YynZ/rYv6egG+w+85Ms+ihogCgjIlh
6xWR0nzceoJYCiQl+ffFTK8=
=XREP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
