Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:56:07AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Prompted by a comment in the UPDATE/LIMIT thread, I saw Marko Tiikkaja
> > reference Tom's post
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1598.1399826841@sss.pgh.pa.us
> > which mentions the possibility of a different partitioning
> > implementation than what we have so far. As it turns out, I've been
> > thinking about partitioning recently, so I thought I would share what
> > I'm thinking so that others can poke holes. My intention is to try to
> > implement this as soon as possible.
>
> 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.
> I support a redesign of this feature. I think the current mixture of
> inheritance, triggers/rules, and check constraints can be properly
> characterized as a Frankenstein solution, where we paste together parts
> until we get something that works --- our partitioning badly needs a
> redesign.
Agreed, and I don't think just hiding the stitches is good enough.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
