On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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. But I do think that a first step very well
might reuse the planner/executor smarts about it. Even a good chunk of
the tablecmd.c logic might be reusable for individual partitions without
much change.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
